w.- OF Kt^^ "^ Co,

44^1

"li^

*<"?eAu o*

</3 Q N BS TECHNICAL NOTE 970

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / National Bureau of Standards
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The

Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and

facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical jrieasurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is performed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory,

and the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

Agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities- — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical

services to users in the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems in the public interest; conducts research in engineering and applied science

in support of objectives in these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary

disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes engineering standards and code changes; develops and

proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer

results of its research to the utlimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering- — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology- — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal Agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities: provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal Agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government.

The Institute consists of the following divisions:

Systems and Software — Computer Systems Engineering — Information Technology.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, Maryland, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, D.C. 20234. ^Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, Colorado, 80303.

The National Bureau of Standards was reorganized, effective April 9, 1978.
^u

Matlonil Burnu oT Stiodardt

OCT 1 3 1978

Aseismic Design of Building Service Systems:

The State-of-the-Art

cc . -oW J'-O / f^9 O

C W. C. Yancey

, A. A. Camacho

I

i

I Center for Building Technology

I National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

/

Kt^-f °' cc ML

%.

^^

^^fiEAU O*

to Q

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

:; NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued September 1978
National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 970

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Tech. Note 970, 83 pages (Sept. 1978) CODEN: NBTNAE

U.S. GOVERNMElSfT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1978

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Price $2.50 Stock No. 003-003-01974-7

(Add 25 percent additional for other than U.S. mailing).
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

ABSTRACT iv

INTRODUCTION 1

1 . 1 Background 1 1.2 Ob je ct ive s 3

1 .3 Scope 3

APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT A

2 .1 Approach 4 2.2 Organization of the Report 7

STATE-OF-THE-ART 8

3.1 Literature Survey 8

3.2 Review of Codes, Standards and Regulations 18

3.2.1 Uniform Building Code 19

3.2.2 City of Los Angeles Building Code 21

3.2.3 City and County of San Francisco Building Code 23

3.2.4 Tri-Services Manual, April 1973. 23

3.2.5 VA Construction Stnadard CD-55 and VA Handbook H08-8 28

3.2.6 State of California Administrative Code, Title 17,

Public Health, Chapter 8, Safety Construction of

Hospitals 2 9

3.2.7 Working Draft of Recommended Comprehensive Seismic

Design Provisions for Buildings ATC-3-04 30

3.3 Current Seismic Research on Nonstructural Elements 33

3.3.1 Construction Engineering Research Laboratory Activities. 33

3«3»2 Veterans Administration Activities 34

3.3.3 National Science Foundation Activities 34

3.3.4 Current California Building Safety Board Activities 35

POST EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDING SERVICE SYSTEMS IN HOSPITALS 3 6

4.1 Post Earthquake Performance Requirements of Hospitals 36

4.2 Recorded Earthquake Damage to Essential Service Systems 38

4.2.1 Explanation of Tables Describing Earthquake Damage 38

4.2.2 Summary of Recorded Earthquake Damage 3 9

4.3 Present Status of Aseismic Design/Evaluation Methodology 43

4.3.1 Review of the Main Elements 43

4.3.2 Conclusions 65

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS 66

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 71

LIST OF REFERENCES 73

iii
ASEISMIC DESIGN OF BUILDING SERVICE SYSTEMS:

THE-STATE-OF-THE-ART

C.W.C. Yancey and A. A. Camacho

A search for information was conducted to define the state-of-theart of aseismic design of building service systems and to identify

areas of needed research. The study focused primarily on service

systems essential to the continuous operation of hospital facilities

in post-earthquake periods. A review of the literature pertaining

to seismic performance of nonstructural systems is presented. An

evaluation of code and standard regulations applicable to the aseismic

design of service system components is also presented. Information

obtained from direct contact with several federal agencies, the State

of California, and practicing architects and engineers is summarized.

The findings from a field visit of two hospitals currently under

construction in earthquake-prone areas are reported. Deficiencies

in current design/evaluation practice are identified and recommendations for research are presented.

Key Words: Aseismic design; building service systems; codes;

earthquake; hospitals; standards.

XV
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Prior to the occurrence of the San Fernando, California earthquake of February,

1971, there was a prevailing attitude that the economic and life-safety consequences of nonstructural damage to buildings were secondary considerations

in earthquake-resistant design. Consequently, the design of a building,

regardless of use, was almost exclusively concerned with mitigating damage to

the structural system. The general practice was to delegate much of the

responsibility for detailing the installation of architectural elements and

"i electrical, plumbing and mechanical equipment to manufacturers and contractors. The lack of code and standard regulations indicated that building

regulatory organizations were also not concerned with the seismic performance

requirements of nonstructural systems. As a result of underestimating the

importance of using rational design principles in detailing nonstructural

systems, a pattern of recurring nonstructural damage, accompanied in some

cases by loss of lives, has emerged. This pattern was documented in several

i accounts of building damage caused by the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964.

I The impetus for change in attitude, however, was created by the comprehensive

study of the consequences of the San Fernando Earthquake of 1971. One revelation was that, while the structural systems of most major buildings were

not irreparably damaged, the extent and cost of the nonstructural damage

was great. It then became evident to both the public and private sectors

that considerable effort was needed to mitigate nonstructural damage in

future earthquakes. Thereafter was initiated the transition toward parity

jj in the design process for nonstructural and structural building systems.

To date, the major portion of the corrective actions has been in the areas

of revision of building codes and adoption of regulatory statutes.

1
While current codes and standards are generally applicable to all classes

of building occupancy, certain classes of occupancy have higher priorities within the context of continuous post-earthquake operation. Although

the classification of building occupancy and use is a subjective process,

hospitals are always included in the most critical class regardless of

the criteria used in identifying the class of "critical-use facilities."

Furthermore, hospitals are among the most complex building facilities from

the standpoint of building service system requirements. Hospitals encompass

most of the problems and requirements encountered in other critical-use

facilities. Hence, the aseismic design of service systems in hospitals

has been given high priority by organizations such as the Veterans Administration, the State of California, and the Army, Navy and Air Force. These

organizations, as well as others, are devoting considerable effort toward

advancing the state-of-the-art while addressing some specific problems

relating to recurring earthquake damage of nonstructural components. It

is through their efforts to develop design criteria that the need for

additional field data and information has been identified.

The National Bureau of Standards engaged in a pilot study to define the

state-of-the-art in the area of aseismic design of nonstructural building

systems. The study concentrated on the service systems contained in the

buildings of a hospital facility that are critical for continuous operation

(hereafter called essential buildings). However, much of the information

reported herein is applicable to building service systems in general.

This pilot study was conducted jointly by the Building Services Section

and the Structures Sections in the Center for Building Technology (CBT).
The activity was coordinated with the overall Disaster Mitigation Program

being conducted by CBT.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to: (1) identify the essential building service

systems required by hospitals and other life-saving facilities in the

process of administering uninterrupted medical services in the immediate

post -earthquake period; (2) identify and evaluate the prevailing aseismic

design philosophies for components of building service systems; (3) determine which code and standard requirements for building service system components are either non-existent or deficient in their coverage; and

(4) identify analytical and experimental research programs which are requisite to the development of aseismic design criteria for building service

systems.

1.3 SCOPE

While recognizing that the continuous, post-earthquake, functioning of

hospitals requires the aseismic performance of all nonstructural systems,

this study concentrated on the components comprising the building service

systems. Thus, the authors attempted to define the state-of-the-art in the

aseismic design of five essential building service systems: (1) fire protection, (2) environmental control, (3) sanitation and water supply, (4) emergency power and (5) general services. The literature and code requirements

were reviewed and evaluated with particular attention given to those service

system components usually installed in the essential buildings of a hospital

facility. Hence, the performance requirements for equipment located outside

the building such as buried fuel storage tanks, utility mains, ground-supported

stacks and tanks, etc., were not considered in this study. Also, the design

3
requirements for the structural system and architectural elements such as

suspended ceilings, building facades and partitions were not studied in depth.

Other nonstructural elements such as furniture and medical equipment and

supplies were not considered.

2. APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

2.1 APPROACH

The study included the following activities: (1) identification of services

essential to the continuous operation of hospital facilities, (2) identification of the components that comprise the selected service systems, (3) definition of the damage incurred by various components in past earthquakes,

(4) evaluation of current code and standard requirements for earthquake

resistance, (5) identification of problem areas and deficiencies in the

state-of-the-art and (6) preparation of a list of needed research activities,

A discussion of these activities is presented in the following paragraphs.

Identification of Services Essential to the Continuous Operation

of Hospital Facilities

Currently there are no widely accepted guidelines for defining the

essential services for the operation of hospitals in the post-disaster

period. In the State of California, a Hospital Operations Subcommittee

(of the state-appointed Building Safety Board) is charged with defining

essential services within the context of post-earthquake emergency service.

In this pilot study, information made available by the subcommittee and other

pertinent literature were used to identify some general aseismic performance £

requirements for hospitals. Then a list of essential services neccessary

to satisfy these requirements was established with the aid of the limited
literature on the subject. From the overall list of essential services, five

building services were selected for further study.

Identification of the Components that Comprise the Selected

Service Systems

NBS identified the constituent components of the five selected

building service systems named in the introduction. This part of the study

focused primarily on electrical and mechanical equipment and the devices

commonly used to attach the equipment to the building frame. A preliminary

list of components was prepared and submitted to several practicing engineers

for review and comments. Based on their comments, a final list of components

was established.

Defining the Damage Incurred by Various Components

In Past Earthquakes

Reports of three recent earthquakes [8, 9, and 42] were reviewed to

identify recurring patterns of damage inflicted on building service systems.

Thus, the documents were used to determine both the relative frequency of

occurrence and the relative degree of certain types of damage experienced

by the electrical and mechanical components.

Evaluation of Current Code and Standard Requirements for

Earthquake Resistance

Because current design philosophies on aseismic performance of nonstructural building systems are largely implied in existing code and standard

provisions, aseismic design requirements in fifteen code and standard type

documents were reviewed and evaluated. The evaluations consisted of:

The numbers in brackets indicate references which are listed in section 7.
(1) determining the type of requirements,

(2) identifying the range of service system components covered by the

code,

(3) explaining the basis for some provisions,

(4) determining the similarities and differences in the design/analysis

methods recommended and

(5) identifying deficiencies in the code provisions.

Identification of Problem Areas and Deficiencies in the State-Of-The-Art

Presently, the state of California and several federal agencies are

sponsoring research and planning activities which are intended to mitigate

the nonstructural damage of critical facilities during and after earthquakes.

Many of the studies that are needed to support the decision-and policy-making

processes are being conducted by California-based Architectural and Engineering firms. To gain insight into problems pertaining to the design and

installation of building service system components, NBS established liaison

with representatives of sponsoring government agencies and with principals

in several of the firms performing the studies.

Initially, NBS contacted the Veterans Administration, the U.S.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the U.S. Army's Construction

Engineering Research Laboratory, the General Services Administration and the

California Department of General Services to learn of their current research

and disaster planning activities. Several A & E firms were visited; these

firms, as well as the above-mentioned agencies, were requested to identify

aseismic design/analysis problems facing practicing engineers and architects

and to suggest areas of research needed to improve design capability. To

observe current construction practice as it applies to earthquake resistance
of nonstructural systems in hospitals, two hospitals under construction in

i California were visited. Based on the information obtained from the above-

, mentioned liaison activities, NBS identified some problems which impede

' the development of aseismic design criteria.

': Preparation of a List of Needed Research Activities

Finally, specific research needs in the area of aseismic design/

I

I evaluation of nonstructural systems were identified and discussed. The

recommendations are intended to provide the basis for detailed analytical

and laboratory studies aimed at developing comprehensive aseismic

design criteria.

2.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The information obtained in the literature survey is discussed in section

3.1. A discussion of the results of the code and standard evaluation

activity is presented in section 3.2. The findings of the inquiries made

to the various government agencies and the A & E firms and the information

obtained from the field visit are summarized in section 3.3. The general

seismic performance requirements and the essential services needed to satisfy these requirements are tabulated in section 4.1. Section 4.2 contains

tables which summarize much of the damage information obtained on the five

selected building service systems. A discussion of the tables is included.

The main elements needed for a design/ evaluation methodology are discussed

in section 4.3. The problem areas that were identified and the research

recommendations are described in chapter five.
3. STATE-OF-THE-ART

3.1 LITERATURE SURVEY

This section presents the findings from a survey of the literature on the

seismic performance of nonstructural components in buildings. This survey

was a major activity in attempting to assess the state-of-the-art on aseismic

design of nonstructural systems. The reference sources included: papers

presented at earthquake conferences, articles in professional publications,

reports of government agency-sponsored studies, and state government legislation. The documents were reviewed with the following objectives: (1) identifying the components of the five nonstructural systems selected for study,

(2) defining past and present aseismic design philosophies, (3) determining

the nature of the damage incurred by nonstructural components, (4) identifying deficiencies in the state-of-the-art and (5) identifying needs for

improved design and installation practices.

Literature on the seismic performance of nonstructural building components

dates from the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964 [8]. The aftermath of this

natural disaster was thoroughly studied and comprehensively documented under

the sponsorship of the National Academy of Sciences [25]. Most of the engineering reports in reference [25] deal with geological and seismological

aspects and with the response of structural systems to the earthquake. Nonstructural system response was covered only in a peripheral sense. There was

one report by Ayres, Sun and Brown [8] whose primary purpose was to document

the nonstructural damage in buildings and to make recommendations for improved

design practice. The investigation which served as the basis for this report

was performed about two years after the March, 1964 earthquake. The investigation team conducted field studies of several damaged buildings which had
not been repaired. They also examined available damage reports, engineering

drawings and project files to compile the necessary data. The report summarizes damage incurred by the following nonstructural systems and components:

o Traction-type and hydraulic elevators

o Escalators

o Mechanical systems including boilers; furnaces; flues; plumbing;

piping; fans; ducts; compressors; HVAC systems; tanks; fire sprinklers; pumps; and gas systems

o Lighting fixtures

o Electrical systems including conduits; switchboards; panelboards;

bus ducts; and motor starters

o Communication and signal systems

o Emergency power and lighting systems

o Facades and glazing

o Ceilings

o Partitions

o Furniture and storage racks

Discussions are presented, in the Ayres et al report, on the damage inflicted

on each of the listed items. The discussions are supplemented by photographs

of the damaged areas. Damage summaries are presented for each system of component and a set of design and installation recommendations for preventing

particular types of damage are also presented. The recommendations generally

are in the form of guidelines for improved practice; however, the guidelines

are not supported by analysis. That is, no calculations are presented to substantiate that the recommended support details can accommodate seismic forces

for differential and gross deflections caused by the supporting elements of the
structure. Nevertheless, the damage report was a significant contribution

to the then sparse data base on nonstructural damage. Some of their recommendations were followed in repairing damaged nonstructural components in

buildings

.

The interest in aseismic design of buildings was increased by the occurrence

of an earthquake in California's San Fernando Valley in February, 1971,

Immediately following the earthquake, disaster investigation teams were

assembled to evaluate the results. Using the experience gained in Alaska

in 1964, many survey teams collected data, prepared reports and made recommendations. Among other factors, the economic and life safety consequences

of nonstructural damage to buildings made a significant impact on legislators, planners, building owners, engineers, architects and code officials.

Although several reports contained discussions on nonstructural damage, only

one was found that was entirely devoted to examining and analyzing this kind

of damage. The report [9] was included in one of three volumes by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The authors of the report,

Ayres and Sun, used a similar format to the one they used in reporting nonstructural damage in the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964, Photographs and

drawings were used to illustrate typical damage. The text provided discussions of the damage and a list of recommendations for improved practice was

included for each system or component.

The Alaska and the San Fernando earthquakes were natural experiments in

which design and construction practices and code effectiveness were tested

by extreme loadings. Therefore, references [8] and [9] serve as bases for

assessing the state-of-the-art in aseismic design of nonstructural systems

in buildings. They highlight many of the recurring problems in design and

10
installation by pointing out damage patterns common to both earthquakes.

It bears mentioning that reports [8] and [9] were prepared by mechanical

and electrical engineers with nominal structural engineering input. The

authors of the documents cited the need for some multi-discipline studies

of the existing data.

The issue of earthquake-resistant design criteria for building service

systems was discussed in a paper [10] presented at a disaster mitigation

workshop in August, 1972, in Boulder, Colorado. The paper's authors

addressed the repeated damage inflicted on such nonstructural components

as elevators, suspended ceilings, lighting fixtures, storage racks and

some components of mechanical systems. In general, the paper did not

present design criteria. But it did discuss some corrective measures

which were intended to mitigate or prevent certain types of damage. One

shortcoming of the recommendations appears to be the absence of any

quantitative requirements for allowable lateral and vertical force and

allowable deflection. The contribution made by this paper to the stateof-the-art is that it has defined some characteristic damage patterns and

that some areas needing additional research were identified.

The publications discussed in previous paragraphs pertain to nonstructural

building systems irrespective of building occupancy and use. The unique

requirements of hospital facilities were not of particular concern.

Hospitals incorporate relatively complicated building service systems

j (i.e. plumbing, electrical, medical, etc.) and they require backup systems

(e.g. emergency power) that are not needed by many other types of buildings,

Recognizing this fact, Merz [24] has attempted to identify and rank order

the importance of the nonstructural systems used in hospitals.

11
He has discussed the behavior of these systems and offered some guidelines

for improving their seismic resistance. Ideally, the guidelines can apply

to components in existing buildings (i.e. retrofitting) as well as to those

in new buildings. The hospital nonstructural systems identified by Merz

and listed in the designated order of priority were: (1) fire protection,

(2) hazardous materials, (3) emergency power, (4) communications, (5) transport, (6) mechanical, (7) medical, (8) architectural and (9) other equipment.

The list is generally applicable to many other classes of building use,

although the order of priority may be significantly different. The priority

listing is subjective and its rationale may be subject to debate. Such a

discussion is beyond the purview of this survey. There does seem to be an

implicit agreement within the literature that the fire protection system

should have number one priority.

Merz's discussion of the response of nonstructural systems to ground

motion provides a foundation for developing analytical procedures. He

indicates that the type of response analysis applicable to a particular

component depends on its physical characteristics. Based on the physical

characteristics, the equipment can be classified as either rigid, flexible

or having drift limitations. As an example of this approach, Merz states

that "the analysis of rigid equipment response requires consideration of

rigid body dynamics." This classification type of approach could lead to

the development of a design methodology in which a design procedure is

selected according to the designated class of the component/attachment

system.

Most of the literature surveyed has been generated from studies conducted

by or for Federal agencies and from actions taken by state governments.

12
For example, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill (SB) 519

[32] to meet the need for maintaining continuous functioning of hospitals

in the post -earthquake period. The bill, effective as of March 7, 1973,

duly recognized the high probability of "strong seismic disturbances"

throughout the State of California. The intent of the Legislature as

declared in Section 2 is stated as follows:

"It is the intent of the Legislature that hospitals, which

house patients having less than the capacity of normally healthy

persons to protect themselves, and which must be completely functional

to perform all necessary services to the public after a disaster,

shall be designed and constructed to resist, insofar as practicable,

the forces generated by earthquakes, gravity and winds. In order to

accomplish this purpose the Legislature intends to establish proper

building standards for earthquake resistance based upon current

knowledge, ..."

The State Department of Public Health was authorized to make regulations

to carry out the act. In an article on the background of this bill,

Meehan [23] indicates that Title 17 (see paragraph 3.2.6 for a discussion

of this regulation) of the California Administrative Code gives the building regulations for California hospitals. Title 17 also contains the

special provisions for the seismic load levels and performance. SB 519

established a Building Safety Board which was authorized to act as a

i board of appeals with regard to seismic structural safety of hospitals.

The board has established five standing subcommittees. One of these

subcommittees, Hospital Operations, is charged with defining necessary

i

I or essential services which must remain functional following a disaster.

13
The issue of functionality is a very complicated one. Many questions arise

such as what constitutes the essential services and how long should they

be required to remain functional.

The Veterans Administration (VA) is another agency whose interest in earthquake-resistant design of hospitals has increased since the San Fernando

earthquake of 1971. Prior to that event, VA buildings were designed for

seismic loads in accordance with the local or national building codes used

by the locality, A study of this VA policy was prompted by building collapse

and consequent loss of life at the VA San Fernando Hospital. The principal

objective of the study was to prepare a critique of current local and national

building codes and to recommend revisions for VA design. Based on recommendations made in the report of the study [40], the VA adopted, in 1972, the

the concept that a hospital facility should remain in continuous operation

after an earthquake. As noted above, this intention was also declared in

California's Senate Bill 519. The committee appointed by the VA to conduct

the study was charged with the task of recommending code requirements to

ensure continuous service. It was the adoption of this concept of continuity of essential services which heightened the VA's concern for the performance of nonstructural building systems. In fact, it was on the basis of

some of the recommendations made by the VA-appointed committee that two new

VA Construction Standards were adopted: (1) CD-54 [38] and (2) CD-55 [39].

The requirements of CD-55 are discussed below in paragraph 3.2.5. It is

interesting to note that CD-54 contains the requirement that emergency facilities shall be designed on the basis of "the hospital continuing in operation

at normal bed capacity for a 4-day period immediately following an earthquake."

This is is the only instance noted in the literature in which the required

Ik
time period of continuous post-earthquake operation is stated. The

rationale for the 4-day requirement is that disruptions in normal outside

utility services and site access facilities (i.e. roadways, bridges and

helicopter landing areas) will either be repaired or circumvented by alternates within this period of time.

Another study was conducted for the Veterans Administration to establish

protection provisions for hospital equipment, furniture, and supplies [3],

The study was primarily directed toward new construction and was concerned

with such items as x-ray units, desks, chairs and pharmaceutical supplies.

The researchers started with the basic assumption that the new hospital

facilities will be built according to VA Standards CD-54, CD-55 and H08-8.

Further, it was assumed that the buildings will remain structurally intact

and that their major electrical and mechanical systems will remain functional

in the post-earthquake period. The essential post-earthquake activities have

been placed into three categories: (1) patient care (e.g., operating rooms),

(2) medical support (e.g., x-ray), and (3) non-medical support (e.g., building maintenance). Using the lists of essential activities, the investigators

determined the equipment, furniture and supplies required to perform the

essential activities. Then, they provided a range of techniques for restraining the nonstructural items against the effects of seismic forces.

This report [3] provided information useful in establishing the essential

service systems required by hospital facilities.

Some of the government-sponsored studies have not focused on hospitals per

se, but on buildings in general. Nevertheless, the information provided

by these more generic studies was useful to this literature survey.

15
The Public Buildings Service of the General Services Administration (GSA)

authorized two studies aimed at improving aseisraic design criteria for

buildings under its charge. One study addressed the need to improve the

design criteria for structural components in buildings. The second study

[2] authorized by GSA and, reviewed for this report, was intended to develop

improved criteria for nonstructural components. In addition to a survey of

the literature and a critical analysis of selected building codes, the GSA

report on nonstructural components presents comprehensive seismic criteria

for the review and evaluation of nonstructural components. The criteria are

divided into two parts: an evaluation system for existing buildings and

design criteria for components in new construction. The system for evaluating

existing buildings consists of a research phase, in which nonstructural component information is assembled, and an evaluation phase, in which the assembled information is systematically reviewed to predict the seismic performance

of the in-place nonstructural components. Based on this two-phase approach,

decisions can be made for future action. Because this systems approach was

developed for all classes of public buildings, it has potential application

in the field of retrofitting existing buildings for improved seismic resistance. The design criteria in [2] for components in new construction include:

seismic design standards; illustrations showing the probable response motions

of nonstructural components to earthquake accelerations; recommended configurations and guidelines for advantageously selecting, arranging and constructing

nonstructural components for mitigating damage; and checklists which would

aid GSA personnel in reviewing new designs.

In summary, the number of publications on the seismic performance of

nonstructural building systems is sparse. The majority of the literature

16
dates to the early seventies when reports of the effects of the Great Alaska

Earthquake were published. The reports reviewed in this survey have largely

resulted from studies performed for federal agencies and from activities conducted by the State of California. Several reports, [8, 9 and 25], were useful in providing descriptions of typical damage incurred by various nonstructural components during three recent earthquakes. Recommended actions for

improved design and installation practices have been offered by the authors of

the reports based on their assessments of the damage. Most of the recommendations are concerned with restraining the components against seismic force

effects. Interaction between structural and nonstructural systems in buildings is discussed by Merz [24] and McCue et al.[22], but no interdisciplinary

studies involving architects and mechanical, electrical and structural engineers were reported. One of the studies [40] , which was sponsored by a federal

agency (VA) , had as one of its primary objectives the development of new codes

or standards for aseismic design of nonstructural systems in hospitals. As a

result of this study, the VA adopted Construction Standards CD-54 [38] and

CD-55 [39]. CD-54 contains the requirement that emergency facilities shall be

designed on the basis of the hospital continuing in operation at normal bed

capacity for a 4-day period immediately following an earthquake. The State of

California enacted legislation [32] specifically intended to ensure the continuous operation of hosiptal facilities in the post-earthquake period. GSA is

another agency concerned with aseismic design of buildings. One of the studies

conducted for GSA [2] was intended to develop improved criteria for nonstructural components in buildings.

17
3.2 REVIEW OF CODES, STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS

This section presents a discussion of the aseismic design requirements of

selected codes, standards and statutory regulations for building service

systems. These documents were reviewed with emphasis on the following

key factors:

o historical development

o comparative numbers of service system components covered

by the seismic performance sections

o implications of design philosophy

o indication of the incorporation of current

knowledge in the performance requirements

The traditional philosophy with respect to the design and evaluation of

buildings for seismic events is that the structural and nonstructural systems

can be uncoupled and considered independently. Thus, architectural elements

and plumbing, mechanical and electrical systems, as well as other nonstructural components are treated as being subjected to forces applied by the

structural components to which they are attached. This seismic force input

is usually accounted for in codes by assigning certain design force factors

to the various nonstructural components. An equivalent static force is computed and is considered to be applied to the approximate center of gravity

of the component being analyzed. The equivalent static force is also a function of the weight of the equipment and a "seismic risk factor." All of the

codes and standards discussed in this section use the same basic formulation

for computing the equivalent static force:

V ZCp Wp (1)

18
where,

F = Lateral force applied to the nonstructural component,

Z = Numerical coefficient which depends on the seismic risk

of the zone in which the building is located,

C = Horizontal force factor which varies with the type of

nonstructural component, and

W = The weight of a part or portion of a structure or of a

nonstructural component.

The major difference between code provisions for a particular component lies

in the magnitude of the C value. Also, some codes are more comprehensive

than others in their treatment of the nonstructural components for which C

P values are presented.

3.2.1 Uniform Building Code (UBC) [37]

The UBC, having been first published in 1927, has traditionally been the

national model from which local jurisdictions and some federal building regulatory agencies have developed aseismic design requirements. Section 2314 of

UBC, Earthquake Regulations is germane to earthquake-resistant design.

Reflecting the national applicability of the UBC regulations, equation

(1) above can be adjusted to account for the seismic risk of areas throughout

the continental United States, Hawaii and Alaska. Values of Z (see equation

1) are assigned according to the UBC Seismic Risk Map of the United States.

The map is divided into four zones; the significance of the zones and the

associated Z values are as follows:

19
Table 1 - Seismic Risk Zones in the UBC

Zone Comments Value of Z

No damage. 0.0

Minor damage; distant earthquakes 0.25

may cause damage to structures with

fundamental periods greater than 1.0

seconds; corresponds to intensities V

and VI on the M.M.^ Scale.

Moderate damage; corresponds to 0.50

intensity VII on the M.M. Scale,

Major damage; corresponds to intensity 1.0

VIII and higher on the M.M. Scale.

Footnotes

:

These comments are direct quotes from the UBC's Seismic Risk Map

of the United States.

Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931.

20
The bases for the seismic risk map are stated on the map. Table 1

indicates that the value of Z doubles as the number of the risk zone

increases and it has a maximum of 1.0.

There is no explanation given as to how the C values in the UBC are derived,

The UBC table of C values does not include factors for such mechanical and

electrical equipment as elevators, panelboards, pumps, switchgear and lighting fixtures. By comparison with some of the other codes in the survey,

the list of nonstructural components is generally not as comprehensive.

When using the UBC design approach, there is no variation of C according

to the height above ground of the floor on which the component is located,

except for the following components: tanks, towers, storage racks, chimney,

smokestacks and penthouses.

When using the UBC method, the designer selects the values of Z and C from

the respective tables, establishes the weight of the component and computes

the equivalent static force from equation 1. The device for supporting or

bracing the component is then sized on the basis of its resisting force F .

Interaction between the supporting structural elements and the component is

not explicitly accounted for in this approach. It is important to note also

that the UBC regulations apply equally to all classes of building use.

Therfore, nonstructural components in critical-use facilities such as hospitals are not subject to more stringent performance requirements than those

in other classes of buildings.

3.2.2 City of Los Angeles Building Code [21]

The provisions reviewed for this study are those in Section 91.2305,

Horizontal Forces, Division 23, Loads and General Design of the Los Angeles

21
Building Code. Prior to a city ordinance in May 1973, Section 91.2305 was

identical to Section 2314 of the UBC with one exception. The exception was

that in addition to the equivalent static load analysis discussed previously,

the city adopted a set of Rules of General Application (RGA's). Two of the

RGA's are applicable to this study and they are RGA 4-74 [19], "Recommended

Standards for Suspended Ceiling Assemblies" and RGA 12-69 [20], "Standard

for Lighting Fixture Supports." These are both performance standards;

compliance with these standards can be substantiated either by calculation

or test procedures. RGA 4-74 applies to the structural members used primarily

to support acoustical panels or acoustical lay-in tiles, with or without light

fixtures. RGA 12-69 requires a shake-table compliance test for the support

system of lighting fixtures that have more than one point of support. RGA

12-69 and the Tri-Services Manual [36] are the only two code documents found

in this study which explicitly require tests for acceptance of nonstructural

components.

Several noteworthy changes were incorporated in the May 1973 ordinance

concerning the design of nonstructural components. First, the Los Angeles

Building Code acknowledged a class of "Essential Facilities" whose continuous

post-earthquake operation is necessary to "preserve the peace, health and

safety of the general public." Included in these facilities are hospitals

and other life-support facilities. A general requirement for the building

elements and critical equipment in the essential facilities is that they

be designed, detailed and constructed to withstand the maximum acceleration

and deflections of the structure without disrupting the post-earthquake

operations or service. Also, the revised regulations require dynamic analysis of all buildings except those which are 160 feet or less in height,

22
and are essentially regular in shape and in stiffness, over the entire height,

The results of the dynamic analysis of the structure can then be used to aid

in designing and detailing the nonstructural elements. Any building - irrespective of the class of the facility - 160 feet or less in height may still

'\ be designed using static analysis.

3.2.3 City and County of San Francisco Building Code [30]

The 1975 edition of the San Francisco Building Code was reviewed and found

to be similar to the UBC in the requirement of a static analysis for nonstructural components. The table of C values in the San Francisco Code included

several components not covered by UBC. For example, C values are included

for elevator equipment and anchorage of major mechanical and electrical equipment. In the basic formula for lateral force on nonstructural components

i

' (equation 1 above), the value of Z is given as 1.0, indicative of zone 3 on

the UBC Seismic Risk Map. Thus, the formula is reduced to:

F^ = C„ W^ (2)

P P P

3.2.4 Tri-Services Manual, April 1973 [36]

' This manual governs the design of facilities for the U.S. Army, Navy and

i Air Force in earthquake-prone areas. Section 8 of the manual prescribes

I the criteria for structural design of anchorages and supports for mechanical

] and electrical equipment. Although the design methodology for most mechanical and electrical components reduces to a static analysis, there are some

notable departures from the UBC basic formulation.

First, the manual presents a seismic risk map for the continental United

States which is divided into five risk zones. It is recalled that the UBC

Seismic Risk Map is divided into four risk zones. The damage associated

23
with each zone of the Tri-Services Manual is indicated in table 2.

Table 2 - Seismic Risk Zones in Tri-Service Manual

Zone Damage

None

1 Minor

2 Moderate

3 Major

4 Great

In the Tri-Services method, zone values used in the analysis will depend

on two factors: (1) the specific seismic risk zone in which the building

site is located and (2) the relative importance of the occupancy of the

facility. Facilities are classified as having either a "High-Loss-Potential"

or a "Low-Loss-Potential." Included in the class of High-Loss-Potential facilities are hospitals and physically annexed outpatient buildings. The values

of Z for all facilities range from to 1.5 depending on the combination of

seismic risk zone and class of loss potential. The 1.5 value applies to

High-Loss-Potential facilities located in zone 4. By comparison with the

Z values given in the UBC (see table 1), it is seen that the 1.5 value is

50% greater than the highest value in the UBC.

The second departure is that equipment mounted in buildings is classified

according to its weight and to the rigidity of the support system, in accordance with the following classification: (1) rigidly mounted equipment is

that for which the fundamental period of vibration is less than or equal

2U
to 0.05 seconds and whose weight is less the 15 kips. An example of rigidly

mounted equipment is an electric motor bolted to a concrete floor; (2) equipment whose weight does not exceed one-tenth of the dead load of the floor

at the equipment level and (3) equipment whose weight and support conditions

fall between (1) and (2). Supports for equipment in the first group may

be designed by simplified static analysis that uses equivalent static force.

Supports for equipment in the second group are excluded from the scope of

the manual as they are seen as requiring a rigorous dynamic analysis. The

analysis would have to consider the interaction between the equipment and

the structural element to which it is attached. The design of supports for

the third group of equipment assumes that the equipment and its support

system can be approximated by a single-degree-of-freedom system. The method

involves the calculation of an equivalent static force:

F = ZKCW (3)

where,

F = Equivalent static lateral force,

Z = Seismic probability coefficient (same symbolism as in equation 1)

K = Numerical coefficient set forth in the SEAOC code [31] and

dependent on the type of structural system,

C = Seismic force coefficient, and

W = Weight of equipment.

The most significant difference between equation 3 and that given in the

UBC lies in coefficient C. The formula for the seismic force coefficient

is

C = (Cg) (A^) (M,F,) (4)

25
where,

C = A soil constant dependent on the allowable soil bearing

pressure for the site,

An = Estimated design acceleration for the height of the floor

level on which the equipment is located, and

M.F. = Appendage magnification factor dependent on the approximate

periods of the appendage and the building.

Thus, C appears to be a refinement of the C factor discussed in paragraph

3,2.1, in that influence of site conditions (Cg) and the effect of height

equipment above the ground (A, ) are introduced. The appendage magnification factor accounts for the concept of transmissibility in vibration

theory.

The most critical condition occurs when resonance exists between the equipment and the structural element. Therefore, when the period of the equipment/support system approaches the period of the structure, the magnification factor will become infinitely large. Referring to equation 3 this condition results in a very large equivalent static lateral force. The equipment support design would have to be changed to attenuate this undesirable

effect. The important point is that the principles of structural dynamics

are explicitly incorporated in this design method to account for the condition of resonance.

In addition to the requirements discussed above, the Tri-Services Manual

has established specific requirements for the performance of lighting

fixture supports. First, there are some prescriptive details pertaining

to the Installation of pendant-supported, recessed and surface-mounted

26

I
flourescent fixtures. Then, there is a provision for the use of a shakertable test to show compliance with performance requirements. All of the

above-mentioned fixture types may be tested dynamically in lieu of performing a static analysis. The apparatus and test procedure in the TriServices test method are similar to those d-escribed in the Los Angeles

RGA 12-69 [20], An important difference between the two methods is in the

specification of the input frequency and acceleration magnitude. RGA 12-69

specifies a single input frequency (1 Hertz) and an acceleration level of

0.2g. On the other hand, the Tri-Services method specifies accelerationmagnitudes of 0.375g, 0.25g, 0.13g and 0.06g, depending on the seismic risk

zone. In the Tri-Services method, the input frequency must be adjusted to

produce the specified acceleration magnitude.

The Tri-Services Manual also contains requirements for the various piping

systems (i.e. sprinkler risers, air, yacuum and plumbing in buildings).

According to current practice, design requirement for all piping included

in the fire protection system are governed by the provisions of the National

Fire Protection Association (NFPA) sprinkler standard [26]. This standard

'! prescribes some acceptable sway bracing details and typical arrangements of

flexible joints for sprinkers. The NFPA standard also gives installation

recommendations intended to prevent piping damage during earthquakes. The

Tri-Services manual contains requirements for all non-fire protection piping,

These requirements are in the form of allowable span tables for different

pipe sizes, pipe materials and end conditions (e.g. pinned-pinned) . The

allowable spans were calculated using equations for the fundamental period

of vibration. The maximum allowable period of vibration of the pipes was

set at 0.05 seconds and the equations were solved for span lengths. The

27
pipe supports must be designed to resist the zone-dependent, equivalent

static forces, calculated for the weight of the pipe full of water.

3.2.5 VA Construction Standard CD-55 [39] and VA Handbook H08-8 [16]

Construction Standard CD-55 establishes the Veterans Administration's policy

for the design of nonstructural components of buildings to resist seismic

damage. Implementation of the objectives of this standard relies heavily

on the conclusions of site evaluation studies. A study is required for

each VA Hospital site; the study is intended to establish "the charateristics

of strong ground motion," including a peak horizontal ground acceleration.

Also, the studies must project building damage according to the Modified

Mercalli (MM) scale of intensities. When the studies project damage of

MM Intensity VI (on a scale of I - XII) or greater, earthquake-resistant

design is required. The design requirements contained in CD-55 are prescriptive in nature; general design and construction measures are presented in

the following areas:

(1) Consideration of the seismic accelerations and deflections

at various elevations and locations when placing heavy

mechanical and electrical equipment.

(2) Use of restraining devices to limit differential movements

between nonstructural elements and the building elements.

(3) The provision of flexibility in electrical and mechanical

systems which must cross seismic joints in buildings.

(4) The reinforcement of field-fabricated nonstructural components

to resist damage from seismic motions.

(5) The earthquake-resistant design - internally and externally - of

28
electrical and mechanical equipment used in locations where the

site evaluation studies estimate damage of Modified Mercalli

Intensity VIII or greater.

In addition to complying with the above-mentioned requirements, the design

must also be in accordance with VA Handbook H08-8, The requirements in

H08-8 for nonstructural elements are based on the Uniform Building Code's

equivalent static force method. In addition, H08-8 includes several provisions recommended by a VA-appointed advisory committee on earthquakes.

While the VA method of computing forces for nonstructural elements is similar to that given in the UBC, the VA seismic force factors (C 's) are

more site-specific. This refinement is attributed to the VA site evaluation studies mentioned above. The horizontal ground acceleration obtained

from a study is expressed as "Ajjiax*" ^'^^ importance of A^j^^^^ is reflected

in the table of force factors (C 's) for nonstructural components. Two C

values are tabulated for each component. The higher of the two C values

is used when A^o^^ 0,15g and the lower C value is used when Ajjj^j^< 0.15g,

The C values are based on the hospital design requirements of the California

State Department of Public Health, In regions where no earthquake activity

has previously occurred, new structures and major additions must be designed

I for a minimum K.^ of 0,05g.

3,2,6 State of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Public Health,

Chapter 8, Safety Construction of Hospitals [12]

The seismic design of nonstructural systems as governed by Title 17 uses

the same basic formulation as that presented in the UBC (see paragraph 3,2.1

above). Since all of California is considered to be in seismic risk zone

3 of the Uniform Building Code, the value of Z is implicitly taken as 1.0.

29
The table of C values is the most comprehensive of those encountered in

this survey. Moreover, two sets of C values are presented to account for

the relative importance of the buildings during the post-disaster period.

The distinction is made between "essential buildings or structures" and

"non-essential buildings or structures". Namely, "non-essential buildings

or structures are those which are not required for the complete functioning of a hospital to perform all necessary services to the public after

a disaster."

Those buildings or structures required for the continuing operation of the

hospital are classified as essential buildings. This approach is similar

to that established in the Tri-Services Manual (see paragraph 3.2.4).

The higher C values are assigned to the nonstructural systems which are

housed in essential buildings. For either class of building use, the C

values are recommended minimums which may be increased to account for

unusually important or expensive equipment or for equipment located in the

upper levels of multi-story buildings. Title 17 also requires that the

mechanical and electrical drawings show the complete systems and the details

for fastening the equipment to the structure to resist seismic forces.

3.2.7 Working Draft of Recommended Comprehensive Seismic Design Provisions

for Buildings ATC-3-04 [6]

A working draft of a report being prepared by the Applied Technology Council

(ATC) was reviewed. The draft, dated January 31, 1976, reports on the current

status of a project whose objective is to develop comprehensive aseismic

design provisions that can be adopted by jurisdictions throughout the United

States. Chapter four of the report contains recommended design requirements

for structural and architectural elements and for mechanical and electrical

equipment in buildings. The design method described therein specifies a 30
static analysis similar to that in the UBC [3 7], The various components

and their supports are designed to resist an equivalent static force.

Three formulas are presented for computing the design force. One formula

is applied to structural elements, another to architectural elements and a

third to electrical and mechanical equipment. For the design of electrical

and mechanical equipment and their attachment devices, the formula is:

Fp = A Cp M Wp P m . (5)

where

,

A = The coefficient representing the effective peak ground

acceleration,

C = The force factor for various components,

M = The amplification coefficient for a component in the building,

W = The weight of the component,

P = The performance level coefficient which ranges from 0.0 to

1.5, and

m = The component attachment amplification factor which depends on

the ratio of the fundamental period of the component/attachment

system to that of the building.

^j The most notable difference between the Tri-Services formula (see equations

3 and 4) and equation 5 is that the latter uses a performance level factor P.

Nonstructural systems are required to meet one of four levels of performance:

(1) none, (2) low, (3) good and (4) superior. A value of P is assigned to

each of these performance levels. The performance level applicable to a particular nonstructural component is dependent on the use of the building.

31
There are three groups of building use, with classification assigned

according to their importance to post-disaster recovery and continuous

operation during and after an earthquake. Hospital buildings are included

in the most critical group. All of the electrical and mechanical equipment

in the most critical group must be designed for the maximum performance level

factor, which is 1.5.

The codes and standards previously discussed reflect the state-of-the-art

of aseismic design of nonstructural building systems. The prevailing design

method involves the calculation of an equivalent static design force. The

component/attachment systems are to be designed to resist the effect of this

force, whose point of application is at the center of gravity of the component,

The basic formula for the design force is presented in the JBC [37]. Variations and refinements of the basic formula are given in other codes depending

on whether the document considers the physical properties of the building

(e.g. the height of the floor on which the component is located), the earthquake response characteristics of the ground (e.g. peak ground acceleration)

and the dynamic characteristics of the component/attachment system (e.g. the

fundamental period of vibration) . The class of building use is also accounted

for in several codes. In general, the provisions of the codes surveyed do

not explicitly account for the effect of interaction between the structural

system and the nonstructural components. The nonstructural component is to

be analyzed as a dynamically uncoupled system, with no consideration being

given to the interdependence of the two systems.

32
3.3 CURRENT SEISMIC RESEARCH ON NONSTRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

Contacts were made with Federal agencies and the California Building Safety

Board in order to review their current efforts in seismic research on nonstructural elements.

The organizations contacted were :

o Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)

. o Veterans Administration (VA)

J o Building Safety Board (BSB)

o National Science Foundation (NSF)

The results of the interviews of each of the above organizations are

presented in this section.

3.3.1 Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) Activities

There is a current CERL project entitled "Nonstructural Hardness Against

Earthquakes and Other National Disasters." The objectives of the program

are to update the aseismic design criteria in the Tri-Services Manual [36]

and to establish a classification system for all essential equipment in hospitals. All nine of the essential systems identified by Merz [24] and the

three essential functions described by Stone, Marraccini & Patterson [3] are

j included in the scope of the study.

There are five categories into which the nonstructural components can be

[i placed: (1) structural support requirements; (2) code and standard requirements; (3) specification writing for equipment procurement; (4) physical compliance testing and (5) statistical (i.e. reliability) analysis based on

past performance. Moreover, CERL is analyzing the failures of a wide range

of nonstructural building components based on shock test data obtained from

33
an extensive test program conducted by the Army Defense System on the

fragility of internal and life support systems in critical facilities.

However, the applicability of such data to seismic provisions remains to

be established. The project also includes a contract with A & E firms to

develop specifications for nonstructural elements in the following four major

areas: (1) design and monitoring procedures for equipment; (2) testing procedures; (3) analytical procedures, and (4) treatment of failure data. These

specifications will serve as a basis for changes to existing design codes.

3.3.2 Veterans Administration Activities

The Veterans Administration is conducting a program in which the seismic

resistance of VA hospitals located in risk zones 2 and 3 (according to the

UBC Seismic Risk Map) is being assessed. The studies are being conducted

by local A & E firms and involve the evaluation of the hospitals compliance

with the latest VA design criteria [16], [38] and [39]. The A & E firms

are charged with determining the non-compliant elements in the existing facilities and advising the VA of the economic feasibility of upgrading the deficient buildings and components to meet the current standards.

3.3.3 National Science Foundation Activities

One of the impediments to advancing the state-of-the-art in designing and

detailing of nonstructural systems is the lack of understanding of the interaction occurring between structural and nonstructural systems during a seismic event. The traditional design/analysis approach is to uncouple the

systems and treat them separately. Thus, the behavior of the nonstructural

system is considered to be activated by the motion of the structural system

and then the structural system is implicitly assumed to become stationary.

In a current NSF funded study [22] the relationship and interaction between

34
the primary (i.e., structural) system and nonstructural system is being

determined. The assumption is that the building consists of a number of

interdependent systems. Thus the seismic response of the building's primary

system influences and is influenced by the architectural and other nonstructural systems. Recognizing that there are several levels of interaction,

the investigators have been classifying the nonstructural systems according

to their means of attachment to the structural elements. The first class

consists of architectural elements which because of their means of connection,

must respond in the same manner as the structure. The second class consists

of elements supported by one structural element such as a beam. The third

class is comprised of those architectural elements which are supported by

more than one structural element. Efforts are currently aimed at developing

simplified analytical models for these different classes of architectural

systems in order to predict their dynamic responses.. Although the scope of

this research program is limited only to architectural systems, it could be

applied to other nonstructural components as well.

3.3.4 Current California Building Safety Board Activities

' Senate Bill 519 [32] authorized the California Department of Health to adopt

regulations to carry out the intent of SB 519. It also established a Building

Safety Board to advise the Department of Health with regard to seismic safety

and to act as an appeals board in the enforcement of the Act. The Building

Safety Board has established subcommittees on architectural, mechanical,

electrical, structural, geo technical and hospital operations. These subcommittees act as liaison between the board and the respective technical associations.

35
In particular, the Hospital Operations subcommittee is currently trying to

define those activities and supporting services considered essential to the

continued functioning of the hospital following the occurrence of an earthquake. The implications of such a definition of functionality are great.

Does SB 519 intend that a duplication of essential hospital services be necessary so as to assure functionality? Moreover, SB 519 not only covers construction of new hospital, but also existing ones. Thus, questions like:

"Does the Bill intend that all existing hospitals shall be upgraded to the

new standards?" are being considered by the subcommittee.

4. POST EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDING SERVICE SYSTEMS IN HOSPITALS

4.1 POST EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF HOSPITALS

It is an identified requisite that hospitals shall remain functional subsequent

to the occurrence of an earthquake [32]. By definition, a hospital is functional when (1) it provides protection to the resident patients during the

earthquake; (2) sustains the resident patients and (3) provides treatment

to new arriving casualties resulting from the earthquake. In order to accomplish these objectives, the following general requirements were established:

(1) The hospital building must be able to survive the earthquake.

That is, the structural integrity of the building must be

maintained, and,

(2) The life support and treatment facilities must be operational

after the earthquake.

These general requirements are further developed into subsets called Operational Requirements. Table 3 describes this concept.

36
TABLE 3 - POST-EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

FOR HOSPITALS

BASIC GENERAL OPERATIONAL

PRECEPT OBJECTIVES REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

Protect Building - Structural Integrity

Resident Integrity - Fire Protection

Patients - Hazardous Materials

Hospitals

Protection

Sustain - Emergency Power

Must Resident Life Support - Environmental Control

Remain

Functional

Patients and

Operational

- Sanitation and

Water Supply

Treatment Treatment - Patient Care System

of Facilities - General Services

New Casualties

37
As mentioned in Chapter 2, this study did not address all the operational

requirements listed in column 4 of Table 3. Rather, five essential building

service system have been selected:

(1) Fire Protection

(2) Emergency Power

(3) Sanitation and Water Supply

(4) Environmental Controls

(5) General Services

4.2 RECORDED EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO ESSENTIAL SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.2.1 Explanation of Tables Describing Earthquake Damage

The primary objective of this section is to summarize the damage which has

occurred to essential building service system components during past earthquakes. The overall purpose of acquiring the information was to identify

recurring problem areas and to establish a basis for research recommendations.

Tables 4 through 8 summarize the information obtained in the survey. For

each of the five essential service systems, Column 1 of the tables identifies

their major components. The majority of the information for the second column

in the tables, "Relative Degree of Damage," was obtained from the nonstructural

damage reports prepared by Ayres, et al., [8], [9], and [10]. However, the

degree of damage entries reflect the subjective judgement of the authors

of this report. It should be noted that the entries were derived from a

weighting process which accounted for such factors as differences in the

types of construction in which the components were installed and variations

in the location of similar equipment from building to building. The term

"relative degree of damage" refers to the relative technical difficulty

involved in repairing the system or component and assumes an adequate supply
of replacement parts and sufficient manpower to perform the work. No

connotation of relative expense involved in the repair work is implied in

this damage classification.

Column 3 of the tables, "Consequences of Damage," refers to the implied

consequence of the reported damage to the components. The entries

"inoperative," "partially inoperative," and "operative," indicate whether

the systems and components generally remained functional as a consequence

' of the damage. The fourth column of the tables describes the most frequently recurring types and/or causes of damage.

4,2.2 Summary of Recorded Earthquake Damage

The following observations are made in summarizing the damage to

essential service systems:

(1) Fire Protection Systems

Very little earthquake damage has been inflicted on the various components of fire protection systems in buildings (see table 4). This result

is particularly significant in view of the fact that some studies (e.g.

reference 24) have concluded that the fire protection system should

be given top design priority among the essential service systems. It

is interesting to note that there are standard seismic-resistance requirements governing the design of bracing and support assemblies used in

fire protecting piping trees (see table 9).

(2) Emergency Power Systems

(a) The available documentation regarding emergency power systems

more uniquely reflects the damage picture for hospitals and other

life support facilities than the information gathered for the other

39
four service systems mentioned herein, because emergency power

systems are much more common to life support facilities than they

are to other classes of building occupancy.

(b) While there has not been much major damage inflicted on emergency

power systems, some electrical equipment has been rendered inoperative

by secondary effects (see table 5). The most frequent causes of damage to the larger pieces of equipment have been the excessive movement

of unanchored supports and the lack of top bracing on taller units.

In most cases the excessive movement occured because of the presence

of vibration isolation devices,

(c) Rigid electrical distribution conducts were damaged as a result

of local failures in the structural supports,

(d) The damage to light fixtures has been adequately summarized by

Ayres and Sun [10] as follows: "The various types of light fixtures

behave differently under seismic conditions depending upon their

inherent design and their connections to ceilings. Suspended fixtures that are free to twist and rack are severely damaged when

failures occur in supporting stems or chains and at their ceiling

support points. Surface mounted fixtures sustain very little damage

if properly installed, and recessed fixtures are damaged when they

are not securely fastened to the suspended ceilings,"

(3) Sanitation and Water Supply Systems

The damage sustained by components of Sanitation and Water Supply systems

in multi-story buildings has largely depended on the location of the

equipment within the building. Heavy equipment, such as pumps and large

40
storage tanks, which were located on roofs, in penthouses or on upper

floors, have sustained moderate damage when the support systems failed

(see table 6). As a result of inadequate support and bracing, some

tanks have tipped or overturned, causing ruptures in pipe connections

and loss in service. Pumps mounted on machine-vibration isolators have

been damaged as a result of excessive lateral translation. In general,

sanitation and water supply piping has performed satisfactorily. The

most frequent type of damage, which is due to differential movement

between main and branch piping or between the piping and the connected

equipment, has been the rupture of screwed fittings.

(4) Environmental Control Systems

(a) When considering the damage sustained by the mechanical

equipment comprising the Environmental Control System, it is

important to recognize the following:

(i) mechanical components such as pumps, fans and compressors

may be rigidly mounted to the structure or they may be mounted

on vibration isolators; and

(ii) depending on the architectural design, mechanical equipment

may be located in the upper part of the building (e.g., roof

or penthouse) or the lower part (e.g., basement).

(b) Machines mounted on vibration isolators or not rigidly attached

to a floor slab, beam, column, etc., have fared much worse in recent

earthquakes. The resulting excessive lateral movement, tipping or

overturning, frequently has caused pipe connection ruptures as well

as some internal damage to machinery.

41
(c) Because of the tendency of earthquake-induced ground motions

to be amplified in the upper floors of many buildings, massive

mechanical equipment located in these regions frequently is more

severely damaged than had the same equipment been located in the

basement or on the first floor. While table 7 does not indicate

the location of the damaged equipment, the written and pictorial

accounts presented in the reference reports tend to confirm the

correlation between degree of damage and location of the damaged

equipment within the buildings.

(5) General Services

(a) It is extremely important to the functioning of hospitals,

especially multi-story ones, that people movers remain operative

in the aftermath of an earthquake. It is probably because of their

relative importance and common use in multi-story buildings that

elevators have been comprehensively surveyed in recent earthquake

damage studies.

(b) Damage incurred by traction-type elevators during the San

Fernando Earthquake in 1971 and the Great Alaska Earthquake of

1964 was extensive. As shown in table 8, the type of damage

ranged from broken guiderails to misalignment of the cars. Much

of the damage resulted in loss of elevator service; this severe

consequence attests to the characterization of the elevator by

Ayres and Sun [10] as "a vital - but extremely weak - link in life

safety systems...."

42
(c) Hydraulic-type elevators and escalators have survived

earthquakes with relatively minor damage (see table 8) and almost

no loss of service. It should be noted, however, that these two

classes of people movers are not common to high-rise buildings.

Where they are used in hospital facilities, they would appear to

offer a much more reliable means of egress and ingress than the

traction-type elevators.

4.3 PRESENT STATUS OF ASEISMIC DESIGN/EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

4.3,1 Review of the Main Elements

A comprehensive design/evaluation methodology for any type of system should

consist of several primary elements. The main elements are: (1) code provisions which establish performance requirements for the system, (2) analytical methods which help in predicting the response of a component to design

loads and (3) laboratory test procedures which can be used as evaluation

tools. Thus, the present status of aseismic design of building service

systems can partially be determined by reviewing the code requirements governing the performance of the systems' components. In addition, the stateI of-the-art is Indicated by the availability of applicable design guides,

I analytical procedures and physical test procedures. As mentioned in section

3.2, one of the key factors, for which the codes and standards were reviewed,

was the number of service system components covered by the seismic provisions

I Further, all sources of information mentioned in chapter 3 were drawn from

to determine the availability of analytical procedures and laboratory test

methods for evaluating service system components.

43
+-> c c o

QJV) +-> CO o

LU O)

+-> O o

+-> i- CL

O)CD a;

=3- fO i- E • r—

CU <n Ll. r— Q r ro O) to t— -^ E

<a OJ 3 4-) CT t/> -C >,

-t-> c/1 s-fO OJ LU a

•r- -o >

0) s- -o (U

s- 00 o

a

O)

cc:

to ^

port

movemei

hored

suppo

O) a -a -O Q. O "O 3 TD

OJ 0) <u a; 3 c: OJ 1— 0)

to +-> -M 4-> to (O M •<- 4-> >, 3 s- s_ s_ c s- re s- I— fO o o = o +- o +-> o Q. Q. Qv+J Ci. Q. c --^ <u O) O) a; ^- OJ +-> OJ

OJ O) en S- s- S- 0) o S_ i_ s_ 3 Q. (O 3 o

?",=^^ O) O) o> -o +-I O) CL Ol O) (— (C CD CD CD C CD CL CD

S- Q (B rO (O OJ O) re 3 re

Li_ -O E E E 01 E E to E O) M- (O = = — — ^ 03 =

—

re (0 OJ re re = +->+-) O T3 -o T3 E > "O o "O

to S- re o +-> O O U O o -o E o o s: CL r— r— *r— •r- O) (U "4- ^- M- >, OJ U- 3 <+- d; •1

•1— •-- S- > •-- -a

CJ o <_) re -1- o o O) OJ oi "O on O) OJ Ol Q. Q. Q- c to Q. CD Q.

to to to O O) to reE

to O O O Ol X o re O ^ Z ^ oo LU ^ Q ^

^ ^ O" O)>

M- re O s- OJ

O) OJ 0) 0) O) 0) O) o; <V o; o) OJ o; >

O) > > > > > > > > > > > Q. > •!- c c O O) •r- •!— •1

•r- •!— 'r— •r— 'r— •r- •I- -r- o •r- -M S 2

C CD -t-> +-) +-> +->+->+-> +-> +J 4-> +->+-> c +-> re o o O) n3 fO fO fC fO rt3 fO fO fO fO re re 1—

1

re s- c c: 3 E S- S- t. S- S- S_ S- S- s- s- s- S- OJ J^ J!^ cr (O 0) 0) O) 0) 0) 0) o; OJ 0) OJ o; >> OJ Q- c c

OJ Q Q. Q. Q- Q. CL CL CL CL Q. CL CLi— CL o ID 13

to O O O O O O o o o o o .— o c

c re 1—

1

o

(_> 4J

Sre CL

,_, OJ

•^—

4-

CU O O) OJ > <U +-> +-> •r- <U CT %. S- s- S- S- i- S- S- s- s- s- re s- re S- S-

+-) O) (C o o o o o o o o o o o s- o s- o o

fO S- E c: c c c c c c c c E C O) C OJ c c

.— CD fO •r— -r— •r- •1— 'f— T— •r- 'r— • p— •,- •.- -o •- -o •r— •!— 0)0)0 s: s: ^ ^ 2: s: s s: ^" ^ o s: s:

cc: Q ^ 2:

,-^

00 ^~ — O CD E S- C

0) +-> -r- +J c a

1/1 O ns >, u s- oo ^

to

O) o •f— A to to o (O to on S- c

•r- 1— E -o S- 0) o

> c_> E (O 0) CD

s- LU 0) c to O) CD c 4-> o; h- +-> o OJ -C C <T3 a to oo O to !- CL (C J= Ol .^^ to q; >5 +-> •r- S_ -C U1 +-> c c -^

^— CL 00 3 Q. 0) Q. c« •r- c c/1 re to c 00

(O J3 1— +-> E to c o +-> 1— 4-> re +-> •n- LU S- 1/1 -1- to J^ J^ ^ n3 0) to to 3 O S- s- h- s- M Qi O) S- S- (V o c o .— CL 00 S- Q. O O) o o

C K—

1

1— 0) +-) > C •.- Q. O -1- C Ol E C OJ CL i- .i<i CL C ^ CL

OJ u. .i<: to to ^— 03 S- Ql Q.T- to fO 1- CL CL 3 C CL O C CL

to C •-- -r- re S- CL 3 oa T3 fO -1- r— to re •!— 3 to re 3 •- re 3

to •r- S- X! > J3 1/1 to E E S- u Q- E Q. to to +-> 00 4-> +-> to LU S-Q. oo

rO OO E OJ 3 S- CL CL u

3

OO

Uli
{/) >> 3

<— fO

4-)

O

C -^ (U

O) OJ en 3 Q- (O cr >, E

Ol I— fO u_ -o

O) 4-

+->+-) o

CO S- o o

s: QCO

C7) c

•r—

•4-> -a C 0) 3 -M O i.

b: o

Q.

C O) O s-

•1

-(-> O)

re en

r^ (O o E =

i/i fO f- -o

4- <_) M-O 4-

•P~ -o o

O) <u

1- Q.

(O to

O)

4-> c3OE

c:o•^

4-> fO o o ^^ <u O) o 4J 4-> CO s_ s_

•1— o o

CL Q.

U- 0) a) O S- S-.

+-> O) O) c en en

O) fO <T5 t E- F

CLI 13 ro > o o o

t= o U

•r— • 1

O) M- M- > • 1

• r— • p— o O

00 OJ (V to Q. QO) to on oX O O

aO)

<-> -o

0)

+-> o

CL

-c en U 03 o

+->

to Ol -M 13 •r-"0

.— =3 := I I o o

s- s- -M +-> 4->

+->

+-> CO

to COO

-t-J 0)0)0)0) 3 rs :D 13 T3 -o T3 -a

*t— fO s o to

t; oc tt- OJ <>

to

m

>1 n.

(T3 t/1 r^

0)

n

en P'

(O ren =5

•rC

sa

4->-0

O) CJ)

•.- a;

13 cn

4- <T3 S-

-i-> o O o

Q- c: CL (t3 :3to ti_

n3 j^

=5 fO

O)en

ft3 E

13

OJ

CJ) 13e

13 a

O)en

roE

13

en

13E

13 T3 s_ajs-o)s-o)s-o)

13S-rOS_13S-13SC:.— Cr— C.— Ci— o •>- o -p- o -I- o •>- 130130130(0

0)t4-a>"4- OJH- 0)4-

«i CO to t/1 a)130)130>130)'0 ES-ES-ES-E!- O ZS0I30303 OO +^ U~) 4-> LTI 4-> U~> 4->

03

<D CD

(/> 2

to

O

UJ Q. o >,

+-> o

OJ O) CD a>

re s- E O)

re E

LjJ

01 ' -ii to

re E 3 <U cr+J

-C to f >>

S- 00

re LU O)o D -r- 0) >

-o sS- O) O t/1 o

Ol

O O) c en

O) re 3 E

cr re

OJQtooo

OJ O) OJ > > > • 1

• 1• 1

+-> +J 4-) re re re (U OI QJ S- s- S- OJ > 0) OJ O) O) O) OJ > o> > OJ OJ OJ OJ Q) > OJ O) O) a> f > > > > > > -1- > <r •r— CL > Q. > Q- > > > > •w •r— •!

•r— T— •r- -1- 4-> •1— ? -l-J o •1

O •p—

O 4-> •1

• 1

>,

.,

re +J +-> +-> +-> -(-> 4-) re +j

n re c -(-> c +-)

C re 4-> 4-> 4-> 4-J !- re re re re re re i. re <~ S- t—

re 1—re i- re re re re O) S- i- s- S- S- S- OJ s- V O) s- S- O) S- S- s- ^

Q. o; OJ OJ o; O) OJ CL OJ C" a. >, OJ >. OJ >, CL OJ OJ OJ Cl) O Q. Q. CL CL CL Q. o CL —

o Q- D- o Q- Q. CL CL C o o o o o o c o c

re

re Q.

O re

4->

re

O re 4J

re

c: 1—

OO o o

CM "—'4-

OJ

O > OJ

•I- O) Ol

4-) o> re

re s- E 1

en re OJ o; Q Qi C3

OJ <u O) 0) O) OJ O)

4-> 4-> 4-> 4-> 4-> 4-> 4J

re s- s- S- s_ s- s- re s- s- re re s- re s- re re S- s_ s- ^

s- o o o o o o s- o o S- s- s- s- s_ OJ c c c c c c OJ C C OJ OJ C OJ C O) OJ c: c: c: c

-a •r— "^ •r— 'r— •.- -r- -o •.- •.- -o -0 - X) - -o -0 • r— •1

•1

•1— o s: s: 5: s: 5: 2: o 2:2:0 2: 2: 2: 2: ^~ ^~

OJ

>1 00

OJa

•r—>

cu 00

O)

toto

.2^ i-24-> q: t/1 (/) (/) (U LU S_ 4-> (U c z s 4-> C

O) 4-> OJ z. c

Q_ t/o re c

i- 4->

4-> >- 5-0)0. 4-> OJ +J

c: E 01 re c 3 Z 4-> Ol S- c J3 c JD 10 LU re CD • r- 00 4-) 4-> •f— s- CD S- 4-> CD to Q. CD to to s- • r* 01 • r— to t/) to to to S- to to q: OJ ojs en re C 1-^ *r- C S- 4-> 0) c 4-> S- c 4-> 4-> -0 01 4-J 4-> 4-) 4-) to 4-> 4-) UJ C C -i- •r- Q. r- O) s_ E 3 CD s_ re 3 • r- 5- s_ c • r— s- to S- S- 2: oj i- -i- -a Q. S- 4-> r— s_ C OJ 3 re • f— 3 • r- 3 OJ OJ

LlJ CD r— re *i— 4-) r^ 5- 4- Q.

C • r— CL CDC 0 CL to -a Q.CD -a 0 c Q. 1 4-> S- Q. c OJ re 4- Cl4- • r— s_ CL.C: • r- C CLX) 3 c Q. to O) c Q.

s- 3 4-> 3 3 to re • r- 3 re 3 ^— 3 • 3 OJ 3 E 1 1 4- 00 E to c E 2 to 4-> E to O) -C to JD 4- 00

4-> re • r— c OJ 2:

S- 2

00

re CL LU

h5
+-> E

O

(_)

OJ J2

Most

Frequently

/^n

Reported

Type/Cause^

of

Damage

Separation

due

to

ceiling

racking

II

Separation

of

stem

at

structural

connection;

twisting

of

fixture

Consequence

of

Damage

Inoperative Inoperative Inoperative

Relative

(2)

Degree

of

Damage

Moderate Minor Major

a;

+-> 00

O)>

<D 00

fO

+-> E

0)

CO

C/1 LU

-o

+-> E

(->

a:

LU3

Q.>-

C_) ^LU

C3

ai

LU

LU

Lighting

lighting

fixtures

-

recessed

-

surface

mounted

-

stem

&

chain

suspended

k6
r— CL

fO Q-

•1- =S

+-> 00 c

OJ i- 10 CD CO >-> UJ (t5 S o+J -DC

O) fO CD

re c

<^ E O

re -1- <u Q +J r— re J3 ai +-> ro -ili •!- 1— re E

13 re o^oo

-C

-M ' S- to re E

LU O)

4->

O to <u >, -O I/) S-O 0) o o

0) •.- d: >

s-

<u 00

+J -I-) c: c: OJ <U ' E E ^ <u CU ^^ > > to to

^^

—

T3 -a T3 CD +-> Ol CU E CU CU E (1) c

to

M -M 4-> I— 3

>1 3 S- CU S- S- CU CD

1— re > > OJ CO E 4-> C_) Q.T- Q. Q.T- S- •1- -M C -^ O) CU 10 M- CU M- CU c/» 3 c E

o) OJ ai S- to 4- i~ 1- S- to r- S- CU 3 Q. re <u cu •<- 3 3 S- a- >, E CU CU CU re •M -d MOJ 1— re C7> X "O CD TD CD X M- SS- Q re CU CU re CU re CU CU CU to -o

LL. -o E S- E S- E >> > CD en CU

OJ <+- re re (O (O re r— re a- c +J -M O -0 -M CU T3 = CU -0 +J .n E r— CU W s- sz x: E ore to o o CU to to CU <u +J -0 M2: Q- •1- Z3 •1— •r- 3 to

<u M- -0 to «l- 00 M- "O to CU >, f—

q; •1- CD •1- CD •I- re 3 S- CL U <D C c a CU T3 re C/» CU

CU s- •-- CU •!- CU s- s- XJ Q. S- Q. 3 +-> Q. 4-> Q. 3 CU to c re 3

to +-> c to

C to -fJ CD »-> 1— -M Q- :3 3 Q. C c 1— X 3 3 re CU CU -i- 2: q: 2: Z 2: z: Qi nr Q </1 C_) LL.

—CO

MCU CU CU CU

CU <u > Ol <u > CU > CU CU CU > CU

0) > > -1- > > •-- > -1- > >>•.->

QJ •r- -1- -M •1- •!- +J •1- •!-) •!- • r- .|- +J •-

C O^ -(-) -M re +-> 4-> re -M re !-> 4-> -M re +-> OJ re re re s- re re s- re s- re re re S- re 3 E S- S- CU s- s. cu S- CU s_ S- S- CU s- o- re CU CU Q. CU CU C2. CU Q. CU CU CU ex CU <U Q Q. a. CL Q. CL Q. C2. C2. Qto 00c 00 c c c c P—1 1—1

1—t1—t ^CM»—

M0) CU CU CU CU > OJ 4-> 4-> 4-> 4-) •r- CU C7) s- s- re s- s- re s- re s- s- s- re s- -M o) re 5- 00 s- s- s- re s- E ceo; C C CU C CU c C C O) c

r- en re •1- -I- -a •.- -1- -0 •r- -0 -r- •1- •,- -a •<- CU <U Q s s: s 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2:

ct:

Q s: 2: 2: 2: ~ E >- E ^— CU —J 3

-M Q. CU

W) Q- O) CJ >^ ZD <0 re 00 00 >

CU q: to +-> to ** to u LU 4-> C 00 c E c

•I— 1— •1- re CO > =a: (/) C -r- i- •f— CU •r- CU

i. 3 S- 3 •-> CU +j +j +J SCU +-> 00 >, 3

oo o3 fj s- CU re CU CO -0 CU +-> 00c 3 >1 c V s- C X

r~ z 2: 4-> E 1/1 T3

C to s- 10 to CU J3

C to •!- re -»-> -0 -M • ^ CD+J 4-> +-> Li- 1—1

-O E S-.— JD S- cC c s- re s- S- -M 1— CI 00 >«—<* to •!- CU CU CD c < re Q- CU Q-CJ -^ CU Q- CU 4-> CLIC -!-> CU Q. c: 1 CU I— B cl a. «/1 C Q. Q. o^ Q.+-> £3. re CL C2.Tto >—•

to =5 •!- 3 03 -^ re -t- 3 c •—.T- •!- 3 S- CU •>- 3 JD

1/) ^ Q. Q. CI. 10

C +J Ql I/) •1— to o.<*- to CU .c Q. to E

LU =c E t-' re CJ. re +-> 3

C/1 3 1—

D- CD re .— 3 ex

1+T
fO I—

•1- o

-M S- E 4J

QJ E

1/1

O

to

O

LU ^- O n3

+-> 4JE O OJ

C7. E

fC c

[^ E O

(T3 S- <u Q -1- ^— >

JD 0) c

re -i^: llj 1— fO , 3 ' O" l/l -c E +J OJ

S- 4-> ro U1 LU >,

00 -D

0) (D -o O

i- -r- o > u sOJ O) Qc m

Ol

00 >> 3

fO 4J oc -v^ OJ Ol 0) en 3 CL fT3 a- >, E

<D h- n3

SQ

Li_ -a

O) 4-

+j +J

O

(/) s- o o

s: CL

a;o

OJU 0) C C7) OJ 03 3 E

O" 03

0)

Q

Co

0) o > 0)

•1- O) Ol

-M O) ro fO S- F

-— CT fO

0) O) o

enQE' <v

OJ

(J

"r->

sI/) UJ

-o

0)

i-j

M ^ +-) E C (O -o E CU T3

OJ *4- 01 (U E 0) -M E t. E <u s- £ O) I/) o (U > o > -M M- 4- -E > O x: C O S- O O o o g o

<U E O E E E > CL cn cn re ^^ re x>

O) o CU -O D. E E E o re E • •» 0) CD E S- 0) 3 • ^ •r— 3 <u 3 00 +J

ns 3 E in S_ s- E +-> E s- E <U •r- to 03 E •^ E E 3 o

(O > •^ fO T3 <D (V OJ re O) 0) S- Q. -o •!- (C t. OJ -E -E -E s- s- ^ <U

+-> 4- +-> +J 00 00 S +-> a; 2 +J i~ >, 03 (/) ra oo 4- tJ

S- 1— 5- O) r— o o 4-> OJ 4- -M 3 O)

<C Ol

O s- o +-> -(J E s- •F- E -D 00 cn -o s_ +J E 00 Ol E XJ 0) TC3 re c T5 3 -r- O) <D E 3 E cn E E o o 3 3 (U o <U E OJ re O -(-> 'o o -a -o -o > o -t-> > O ^ -o

OJ (/) +-> E o -t-J o ^—

VI QJ •^ fO <D OJ E OJ E +J o 3 OJ Cn en <u 3 M- re •r- >»"o C 3 T3 03 ns OJ 3 T3 <u o 4- o -o <U E E > -D > <u •^ r— 0) •r- -o 03 +J 03 -t-> •r— -o • ^ CT CT U

<a s- +-> a; E o s- -o s_ 00 (V OJ oo E re CU

S- 3 fO en 0) o o 00 CD i- 00 •I- -i^ QOJ +-> &- fO Q. OJ Q. OJ Q. a; re 0) Ol >, re 00 C Q.J3 E 00 E Q. E Q. o E > (J re OJ <D 3 • f— 03 3 o 3 O 3 X re O) X S s- O o q; > Q OO oo 00 00 00 LU Q 00 UJ 00 CO Z 3

-oEO

(J(UEEO

<J •ME

Ol>

scuo

J2 +JE O (U

!-> E

a;

CU >

cn o

re E E

re o

C3 -M

CLI QJ CU QJ CU O) OJ (U > CU CU > CU CU > OJ OJ OJ Q) Q) > > > > > -1- > > -^ > > -r- > > >>>>-

•^" -r— •!— •-- 4-) •r— -M •1- •!- 4J r— •(— •1- •-- -1- +-> +-)+-> -M +-> re -M 4J re +->+-> re +J -u +j 4-> +J re re t. re re s- re re s- re re re re re s_

S. 5- S- S- CU s- s- cu S- S- Ol S- S- S- S- S- QJ (U CU CU CU CL cu <u Q. O) QJ Q. QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ Q.

CL Q. CL CL

O CL Q.

O CL Q.

O CL Q. c:r CL Q. o O O O o c o O E O O E O O O O O E

QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ -M +J +-> +-> +-> i. s_ re s- re S- s- re 5- s- re s- s- s- s- s- re o o s- o s- o o s_ o o s- o o o o o s- E E QJ E QJ E E QJ E E QJ E E E E E QJ

r- -r- -O r- -O • r- ^r— -o •1- -1- T3 f— '^ •r- •(- •.- -O s s o 5: o s s o 5: s c s: s: s 5: s o

rt ^^-^ v> , +J •-> _i re 00 o o o 3 3 00 q; • r— re -o oo +-> h- T3 ^ +-) E "^ QJ X E o QJ o ^ 00 UJ (/I to O 3 > o EO „ co EO 4-> -o EO o53 _l S- >, •^ •^ 3 • • 1— < +-) -•-> +* J2 s- 00 +-> 00 1— 5 E CJ Ci. CJ o • ^ +J S- CJ QJ ^^ ~— O QJ Q. QJ QJ S- 00 QJ QJ 3

UJ +J E 3 -l-> +-> E -U E -ii 4-> •r— C7) (-> E ^—

s: 1/1 +J • ^ E OO C/0 • r— 00 • r— E I/O • 1^ E 00 S- 00 -o E •r— E 00 U. s s- re E O -(-> E 4-> E O +J E O +-> o • ^ re E O 4J o o s- 3 U s- s- 3 s_ 3 U 5- 3 O S- 3 -O -E ^ 3 CJ s- " q: 00 QJ O -r- o 00 O o +-) U o o 00

1—4 I/O OO E QJ Q-< E CL S- E QJ Q. 00 E QJ CL QJ E E X E QJ Q. >^ > QJ ,- • n- CL Q.^• r— Q. QJ • ^ Q. Q- S- r- CL Q.^ r— re LU •1

Q. Q. Q) 2: S- s_ re • r— 3 re 3 re • 1— 3 QJ re • ^ 3 re S- re •r— 3 E

UJ Q.4- E Q. 00 00 E 00 ,

E CL to E Q- UO 4-> E -Q -M E CL 00 E E QJ E • ^- •r- CJ re •r— o q; re -E O 3 QJ -E O Ll_ C_) QQ O :r C_)

U8

il
cou

to -o «/> c fJ

QJ . &. -Q +-> o r-— c a.

<B oa OJ Q.

^^_,„^ •r- E 3

>* lO -M 00 OJ to S c 2 > o <u o o +-> T3

XI s- -Q E C OJ — a» O) i~ <U «4- <U r— E O

M- fO OJ -C

+-> •!- +-) -r- -a > o -a

jently

De/Cause

age

CO -o (O +-> a> o c <u c -M E <B M >, <u >, cu to s- c 5- .— > 1— S- O) O OJ 3 o fj •>- +-> OJ S- Q.> Q.

to to on "+- 3 OJ •!- 4- OJ o to E cu O M- E •- f^ 5-

cr >, E

OJ 1— fO

sQ 1 1 -n

"O

to

IB 4-

OJ I— -M CD OJ c:

OJCD

O) a; O) OJ (O S- OJ (C

s- S- > >^ E E E

Most 1

Reporte(

of

=J o 3 •!— r^ <o

O OJ fO = = 1— +-> •r- r- to

•r- to

j:^ T3 4-> >o

-o

ro <u (0 <U QJ

O OJ E o

M- 3 4-

O to •1- 3

-o • X to «t- -O OJ «^

TJ 4-> -O OJ (O •- >

OJ 1/1 c OJ

O OJ •»-

a 4J -o at -M O s- OJ S- CO OJ

$- c E i. -M OJ Q.3 00 Ol O (U OJ O en to 4-> OJ CO C2.^ > Q. O) c Q- O

(U o OJ 3 fO

O 3 X o

q; oa E QC -O in z d; LU z ^ CO

•—

M-O OJ cu

cu > QJ OJ OJ >

QJ > •r- > > > •!- (J OJ +-> •^ •t- •!- -M C CD +-> <0 -M +J +J (O c c: c:

0) (O fO i- fO nj (O s- 3 5 S 3 E s- OJ S- S- S- OJ o o o

O" (0 O) a. OJ OJ OJ Q. c c c

Ol

Q ex o Q. CI. Q.

O .^ .^ .^

(/) o c O o o c c: c: £= c 1—I

Z3 ZD Z3 o

C_)

^^

CM

MO) O O) (U > <D M +J c: c c:

•1— (U C7> &- CO S- 5-5-03 5 5 2

+-> 0) fO o S- o O

O 5- o o o

US S- E c (U c C

C OJ c: c c 1— en fO a •r- •I- -r- -a j^ .^ .^

0) <UQ s o s: s: s: o c c c

q:q s: s Z3 Z3 :d ,—.

^-^ , 1 •o ^—

+J E £=

0)

O

-M o to>> oo o 0) oc o> to CO o 1— £1 c c

•r- 2: »f— o o > o a. •1— •f— S- C_J •r— +-> -(-> OJ Q. o a

CO 1 OJ OJ cC ^^ +J c 4-> c

^_ 1

0) to to •1- c: to •rC CO

<o ^ 3 O) (->

C

O 4-> CO

CO -!-> •r— LxJ Ll. c s- 3 O 5- 5- 3 5-

-l-> S to o O OJ

O c •z. "O 0) 13 o. C O) Q- CO c O) a.

(U o C Q. •-> Q. r- CL a. c •r- Q. Q.

CO q: (O •!- •r- 3 t/l <T3 -r- 3 OJ fO -r- 3

l/l I—1

a. M- UJ Q- E Q- I/) -O E Q- 1/5 LU > > E £= 3 O

UJ IC Q.

O

U9
c: (/) 0) O)

c/> o

v> •!- LU >

sO 0)

-f-> CO <Ui—

en re

re s- 00 E (U

re c

dJ

Q OJ ^— O J3 <1J , fO .^ ' 1— re (/) =3 E

cr 0) .E 4-)

-!-> I/) s- >,

re t/o UJ

0) -o a

O) -r- o >

s- s- O 0) o 00

OJ Di

r— re C ^-^ OJ

OJ OJ CD 3 Q. re O- >, E

O) I— re u. -o

OJ <+-

4-> 4->

O

(/) S- o o

O)o <D c cn

OJ re 3 E

cr re

O)

Q

V)coo

OJ o > 0) •^ d) cn

+-) O) re

re s- E

r^ CD re

Ol OJQ

q:QE

OJ +j

to>i 00

OJo>

s- oo

re

-t-> c

</) 00

s-oo

V) f— 00

4-> <4- -(-> E .E 3 <U Ol O .C •r- E +-> -o

0)

S. V)

O -M

•1- 1— +J Ol S- <U.i- c o ^ re -o •r- Q.

-M S_ <U r^ <u

S- r— s-

«t- cu o re

<4- X) -C ^- aj O •- (J *v^ Ol 3 C -t-> re T3 CT> re c F

(U <u re > M- +J F t: o o o c E c Ol u

-M *r- to 3 E r— «*- -MOO) re

•r- .£= nTM

u c c -D 5 ^«> »f- a;

0) 3 O) re o D.

JkI CLi— =: 00 o cn E — -M

i- 1 3 <D s_ 3 o CQ s: --^ u_ o o z

T3

<U -M

S-o

Q.

<U

%.

<uOl

reE

re •o

CO w>

<D <u o

i- s. •r—

*r- •^ «f- s s •p—o c c <u

<u 0) Q. ^^ Vi o o

s. sO

CO cn Z

0) OJ <D O) O) > > > > >

•t— 'r— •r— •r— 'r- -M 4-) 4J 4-> -M

re re re re re

O) OJ <D S- S- s- s- s_ > > > O) a; 0) O) OJ QJ Ol a> O) 0) OJ n>

•r— '1— •r- Q. CL Q. > > > > > > Q. a. ~»

4-> +J +-> o o O -1- r— *r— 'r— >^ o o

re re re c c C -M +J +-> +-> 4J 4J c c 4J

s- !- S- ^ 1—1 1—1 re re re re re re 1—( t—1

re

OJ (V O) S- s- s- s- s- S- ^ Q. Q. Q. >, >, >, Ol oj a; Ol O) OJ >i >> ni O O O 1— r- .— Q. D. CL Q- Q. Q- n E C In

Partial Partial

r—

O

re -M

s-re D- o o o O

O re re

+-> +-> s- s- re re a. a. o

-M

s- s- s- s_ re s- o o o o s- o 1—j-r-j-r-jT-j O) c:

re re re re "o •!

S- 5- i. S_ S- o o o o o E C C C C

-t-> +-> re re

S- S0) OJ -a -o o o o

O)Q.

>i

o.

>> ^ S_ O) s- o -a o

cu +J -p- +J r— re 3 o

Q- > Ol E O OJ

QJ I—

Q. LiJ

to to

+-> I— -E QJ cn E

•r- re

Q) CL

S_ r—

OJ o

+-> s_ E 4-> 3 E O O

(-)

O 3 E re

QJ s- -M -o

to >, >,ni

00 I +-> O i- CL O

S_ CL+->

re 3 re o to >

Q)

OJ>

S- T3oE

re

to QJ

S- E O -r-

+-> -E

re L) r— re

re E u

to E QJ 01 QJ +-> U to >,

re >, 01

i- oo

01 +-> re

S- E CL

QJ oS

O -^-^ -— -I- E 1— 01 +-> O o QJ re o

i- 01

O S-

+-) 00 T- QJ E 3 E +-> O S- 3 E U +-> E •>- Eo

OJE

CL3

O" to

QJ T3

S- Qj re E O O -Q ^ -E

Q.

O

QJ +-)

50
The information on design/evaluation that was obtained from the investigation

is summarized in tables 9 through 18. Tables 9 through 13 are intended

to show the extent of code and standard coverage for the components of

building service systems and to indicate the availability of design guides,

analytical procedures and physical test methods. Each one of the five tables

contains information pertinent to one of the five service systems included

in this study. The first column lists the major components of the essential

service systems (i.e. fire protection, emergency power, sanitation and water

supply, environmental control and general services). The second and third

columns present the damage history of these components as interpreted from

the information documented in references 2, 8, 9, and 10 and that were

obtained through direct contact with design engineers and architects. The

frequency of occurrence of earthquake damage entries (second column) was

established subjectively as the source documents generally did not contain

numerical summaries of the damage incurred by each component in each building

surveyed. Only for components in traction-type elevators is a numerical

damage summary presented [9]. Thus, the frequencies of occurrence were

established by comparing the qualitative summaries presented in the abovementioned reports for the various components. A three-level (i.e. low,

medium, high) scale was used. The relative degree of damage data presented

in the third column of tables 9 through 13 is a repeat of the second column

of tables 4 through 8. The rationale for the establishment of these qualitative summaries was presented in section 4.2,

The fourth column of tables 9 through 13 indicates whether specific aseismic

design requirements are cited in a code, standard, or other regulatory document for the listed components. The fifth column indicates whether there

51
01 13 1— (U +-> J3 O) c

E lO 01

01 ^ c

t/) u o

in to a. < a. S

(O >, o w

3 f— +J w jn >1 c

=> E o Ol

0) XI c

i/i OJ ^ o

CO O) n < u- tn t

.— r- O)

<0 O !-> 3 U •»- t/) -n

•1- CO OJ ai '- >.l— u

Q.^ <> Q.D. s-

•a: a.

CO 03

•r- (J

CO Ol

Ol "D

Ol T3 C ^ •.- QJ OJ

r— Ol 0) (O Q.-I- ce s- Q. c/l Q- ct OJ -O

"O O fO F

01 -o OJ

s_ OJ c !- 01 -a ID •1— > O !-> 3 o o c/0 cr

::?r

a:>

OJ I 01

S- CO x: CO en 3 •!-) c -o OJ Ol to •(- OJ -^ Q >i 4-" to

Ol Xi VI c 3

Ol en E 01 cr > <a -a ' ~

^

OJ 3 !->

-t-J fO c to u i-

<*- Ol M- o ^ O Ol 4J I—

OJ -i«; 03 CO >, U (O o -^ E

U C 3 J-) -l-J OJ C OJ O" C -l-J OJ s- x: OJ OJ CO 3 1- 4-> Ol CO >, O" 3 i- 03 tn t/l OJ O IT3 E LU

Ll. O Q

OJ 01 OJ 01 01 OJ c c c c c c O C3 O O O O

oiOJOioiojoioiajojoiOJajaioi ccccccccccc o o o

o o o o o o

" o o o o o ^ z z z z 2;

CO CO CO to

Ol 01 OJ O Ol O

>->->- Z >- Z

t/1 CO CO to

OJ 01 OJ 01 ° ° 01 I O OJ

tn to t/i t/i to OJ OJ Ol Ol 01 O

l/l CO VI t/l Ol 01 01 OJ OJ I O Ol r O 01 >- I Z >- I s >-

S- &. &. S. S- I. o o o o o o

S- S_ S- S_ S- S- fO S- S- ra !- S- S- ooooooos_oos-ooo c c c c c c c 01 -O -I- -^ -o • o e: s o :

3333333333S3 OOOOOOOOoOOO

CO OJ Ol sz n

CO • r- >1 *->

t/) 3

J3

s- tn • r- OJ i. S01 +-)

Jit: to CO c

s. X3

Irt

rt3 o3

'I- i- Vl -C +-> C C

.— 0-*-»C(-n CO+Jh-

(/ijcjk:s-S-'i— O) i/itn 3US- (UUC+->OUQ.i/iS-Q.

r— fO S- O O- S- Q.'r- trt fO fO i- Q-U ^-QTOfO-i— I— to fO-r- 3(/l (C 3'p- >X}i/i ui clEi-OQ-EQ-t/)i/i+-'to4-J

us- S- I— O OJ O

CL Q. 3 C O. O C ^1

fO OJ o

52
o e ^ o u oOl s: M-o

3 I—

f— <u +-> JD en c

e lo <u <u -^ c:

i/i u o

1/1(0 0. < o- e

I o

(1) S- <J

O (/> >> c O r- 01 .— -Q C

01 e o

•I- <U OLi. on E

(yi o

•I O

OJ t/1 r— 1

a; JD <o 1-

rtl u +J 3

IJ wi -o

Irt <1) <1) ^— >>l— O

Q..C o

O.Q. s_

•a: Q.

(U <U 01 <ii di Oi di c c 2 c c c c

o o o o ° o o

0) O) O) Ol —

^ c c c c:

ro CO

00 00 o o o o

l/l (/I Ol Ol >- >-

I

>. s- I— 3

ro "O < o

o c o o o o o o

4-> 0; OO

•I- cc

o o o o

l/l 01 0) X)

cu -o c

(1) a) J3 3 o

(O t3 ^ •(— (J o 4-> •.- c u O — cr OJ m

CLT- or s- Q. t/l DeC <u o

o o o o <D <U (U tn t/i ^ i/i c/-. X o; o; ^ =~ >•

<D Oj ^ ^

to t/) l/l CD OJ <U ,

t/^ I/) (U (1)

CvJl

D o lo E

O) -O QJ

s- Ol c s- <U TJ lO -r- > O 4J 3 o <_> on cr

col

i/i i/i t/i t/i

<L) O) OJ O)

Q)

OJ I 0)

i- Ol .c ol Ol 3 +-> C "O <L <u on •.- OJ -ii Q >, +J (0 01 J3 1/1 C 3

(U Ol E 0) CT > fO X) 0) E ^ •I- E 01 +-' 3 +J

+J n3 C Ol U S- lO Q -r- >, O 10

I— (O OO Q LlJ <U <*- +J q: o

S- S- S- TO

11 QJ

S- t- s- s- o o o o

e: e: s: e:

14- O) M- O ^

O 0) !-> •—

OJ -^ (O Ol >, O lO O ••- E U C 3 +J +J O)

O) ^ -C <U <U ol 3 S- H-J en Ol >, O" 3 S- lO Ol OO

<U U (O E LU

S- U LU ro

Ll. O O

o o o o

3 CTl o •.- _i n:

S- +J

O OlQ.CT)010lS-*r- >oocn+Jc7>r--i-ct.+->a)c

: C (O C O Q.->- <U S- E 3

) S. -r- •-•.- S_ 4J r- O C

1 Or— "O Q.+JI— S_<*- Q.O C- 4->oiCT-c<Uio>*-a-M-'t- .OOS-Q.03-l->33olia- )EOi iu"+-oiEoiCE

C lO Ol 3 ^ +J o u .-

ol *i— OIOIOI OlOlS-Ol

+j i» c-t->+J"0 cn4-»+->+->4-> Ol lS-(03T-S-S_C*(-i-VloSOH) 30lO-'-30-'-3<U

Q.OIC'O O-O 01"0 Q-Q-OT3 Q..C'i-CQ.-Q3CQ. OlO) 3(Jt0O3r— 003 3QJ Ol+J EUOl OJ^C (JOl UJ3'4-

lO a>

O Ol Ol QJ

4-> +-> C Ol US- •.- Ol

QJ O C71 +J QJ C Q- C J= u

C Q--I- Ol QJ O 3 -l-i -f- S- o o> .C I— I

53
1

OJ 4-J j3 en c

E (O Ol

01 -^ c

1-0 (J o

<: Q. E

1 o

O) S- (_)

15 >) 3 1—

=1 e

(J - l^ "O

•r- LO O) 0) I— >,l— U

r— 3

(0 -o

o

a:

l/l QJ

QJ -o

Ol -o C

I— -I- O) Ol J3 3 E <-) (O C! E •- U O +-> - C O U

I— :^ (D fU a.-r- a: i. CC OJ XJ

?ri lU

S- OJ c s- > O -1-1 3 O (_) 1/1 o- ?n

01

a; I 01 i- to -C 1/; C7) 3 +J C: T3 OJ

OJ OO 'I- O) -ii Q >, +J re

O) J3 1/1 C 3

0)01 E oj o" > 05 -a 0) E -c

•I- E 01 +-1 3 -u

+-» rt3 c: (/I o s-

(O Q '1- >> O 03

1— re t/1 Q UJ

0) 4- +-) cc o

o 0) -u , 0) ^ lU 1/) >, o ro o F

u C 3 +J +J <1) c 01 cr c -»-J 0) S- J= 0) o; i/i 3 5- +J a- un >i

cr 3 !~ ITS LO 00

0) u re LU

(J LU o

e

0)

X X

OJ 01 0) (1) = S S S

c o O o O OJ OJ QJ o o O o

Ol QJ QJ QJ ^ ^ c: c o o o o

n COn n '—

'-^ Z

tn LO

Ol O) >- >-

lo <X! ID

ro m ro

'—'—

'—

yn 1/1 tn

0) 0) 0) >- ^ :^

o o o o

O) o

>--z.

I/) tn

QJ QJ > >- O O OJ o

s- re s- S- s. (O s_ o s- o o o s- o

-,-C QJ c c c 0) ^ -c •.- o.^

s: o s s:s OST

1 S 3 3 1 S 3 3

1 O -r- -r- o -^ • r—

1 _1 -O T3 _j -o X!

QJ QJ 0) Ol

S 3 S 3333 O •>- O O O •.- o _] X3 _] _l _] -0_|

OJ OJ

s- 3 (-> 01 -(-> -u +J

<J +J u LO >> 3 01 ra OJ .—

1/1 X! 0) ?

c 3 >i c " l/t i- e X -(-> c tn -o c tn S- re VI LO 01 JD c LO-r1-' -o +J -r- CD cjj+J -t-> 4J_, X) K u S- 1— JD u s- «s C S- rT3 S- u Sc: --' ' LO • 1

01 OJ CD

fO Q. OJ Q-O Jl£ 0) o- E OJ +J Q.3= -U OJ n 7^ F Q. Q. on c Q. a. en 3 Q.4-1 a. re Q. n-rCO 3 f— 3 oa ^ ro • 1

3 c 3 [— •r— 3 S- QJ -r- 3^ O- a. Q. U1 c +-) CL LO -T- u Q.14- LO 01 -C Q. t/1 E= K 4_> n3 D. re 4^ 3 I— T- > lO ^ ^

5U
o

cn

+-) C O C

O O CL O E

-E O

+-> O0) s: >»-O

'to >, 3 .—

cn xs

=> E

0)

cn

cn

•a:

Pre-Assembled

or

Packaged

Component XXX X X

Ol

Field

Assembly

of

Components XX ^

OO

Applicable Physical Test Procedures None

None None None None None None None None None None None None

s:

LU

1—

u-l >-

1/5 _l I-- O ^

1 +j 0) >> s- — 3

TO -O C Ol <C O

cn s_ C Q.

4-J .

t/1 TO

•r- U

X

LU

01u

C Ol

0) u

S- S0) 3

4- O

Ol OO

ce

No No No No No No No No No

Yes

[33,41]

Yes

[33,41]

No No

O

•a; vo

1— ^-

z.

Cited ina

Code oOOOOOO (/I cn t/i O OOlOIQJOO ^Z. Z. Z.Z. z. z z. z. i:~ -p--^ z. z

Zio

> ^

LU ~—

Ll_ O

z.

e3

C/l LUQ

LU

1—q; ^~ O ^ Ll. —

to

_lo

it./

Applicable

Design

Guides

and

Recommended

Practice

j cn CO l/l cncoco (/it/ic/iincoco cn o OJ OOJ O 01 O 01 OIOJ <]jO)010JCJOI OOOJ ^ z. ^^ z. >- z. >- z. ::^ >- -3- >->- >-•> >- >- z. z.^-

-'Covered

by

Code

or

Standard

Requirements 1 cn cn l/l cncncn cnincni/icn cn 'O 0) OOJ O 01 O 01 OIOI OIOJOIOJQJ OOOI Iz >- z>- z >- z >- ^ >- >->-^>-:^ zz.>-

LU_J<

ct ro > —

I

CNJ

LU

Relative

Degree

of

Damage

Sustained

by

the

Systems

in

Documented

Earthquakes Minor

Moderate MinorModerate Minor Minor

Moderate Minor

Minor

Moderate Minor Minor

Minor Minor Minor

Moderate MinorModerate Moderate Minor Minor

Moderate

_Jm

1—

Frequency

of

Occurrence

of

Earthquake

Damage

to

the

Essential Systems Low

Med i

um

Low

Medium Low Low

Low Low Medium

Medium Low Low Low Low

Med i

um

Medium Low •Low Low Low Low

Medium

I/)

<uu\0)

«/)

TO

•!-> c

«J LU

od;

1—

z.o

_l<:

1—

Z.o

=»zLU

Compressors

(Air,

Medical

Refrigeration)

main

unit

pipe

connections

supports

Fans

(Air

Supply,

Exhaust)

main

unit

supports

Chillers

main

unit

pipe

connections

supports

Boilers

main

unit

pipe

connections

supports

Duct

Network

main

distribution

ducts

branch

dis.

ducts

Heat

Exchangers

main

unit

pipe

connection

supports

Chimneys,

Flues

&

Vents

HVC &

Fuel

Piping

pipes

fittings

supports

Pumps

main

unit

pipe

connections

supports

Condensers main

unit

pipe

connections

supports

55
o

Ul

+-> c

•4- 0) o co

-O Q. O E

-C O

-!-> O

o; s: M-o

"^ >, 3 ^

W J3

=> E

01

(/) cn

Pre-Assembled

or

Packaged

Component XXXXX XXX X

Field

Assembly

of

Components X XXX XX

Applicable Physical Test Procedures

in LO in

01 OJOIOJOJOJOIOI OIOJOJO) c ccccccc cccc minoo

O OOOOOOO OOOO OIOIO)

1

>> s- 1— 3

ro "O C 0) <: U

O

cn s_ C Q4-> .

00 ro

•1- u

X

Cited

in

a

Reference Source O OOOOOOO OOOO ooo

Cited ina

Code O OOOOOOO oooooooo

-^Applicable

Design

Guides

and

Recommended

Practice o OOOOOOO oooooooo z z. z. z. z. z. z. z. zz.-z.z.'z.-z.z.z.

-'Covered

by

Code

or

Standard

Requirements </ioo(/)i>0(/ioo tnt/>w)to

oj a;oo;oajoiaj ooooa)<i)<i><i'

>- >- z: >- ^ >- ::^ ^ z z. z. z. -i- >- >- >

Relative

Degree

of

Damage

Sustained

by

the

Systems

in

Documented

Earthquakes

0) 01 ^ ^ OJ

S_ S-S-S-nSS-S-S- S-S-S-S-rotJiOm

O OOOS-OoO OOOOS-S-S-i. •-) •r-j-r-j ca;ccc ccccojoituoi

fO (O fO -r— "O T- .^ -r— -1— •»— T- -1— -Q "O "O "O

s: 2: s: s: o s: 2: e: zsssoooo

Frequency

of

Occurrence

of

Earthquake

Damage

to

the

Essential Systems

E E E ^ 3 3 JC 3

•rCTi .-•.- cn3-^SS SSS23333 'o'O''— 0"000 oooooooo -X. 0)Oi:e_ioi_i_j —i—i—i—i_j_i_i_j

E

0)

l-J

1/1 >, 00

0)o>

s_

OJ Ul

c

OlOO

(/I LlJ

oo

UJ

LU

_i

ct

q:LUzLlJ

People

Movers

elevators

-

traction

type

-guide

rails

-motor-generators

-counterweights

-control

panels

-cars

-support

system

elevators

-

hydraulic

type

escalators -machine

&

drive

-controllers

-trusses

&

tracks

Communication

System

intercom/pa

system

telephone

equipment

switchboards :^

56
are guides or manuals of recommended practice pertaining to the design of

service system components and their attachment systems. In the process of

classifying documents, Chapter 4 in reference 6 is classified in this study

as a design guide in that the recommended provisions are a model by which

local jurisdictions can adopt aseismic requirements for nonstructural building

systems.

The names of the codes and standards containing aseismic design provisions

i|

'^ are listed in tables 14 through 18 adjacent to the components of each system.

The numbers in parentheses in these tables correspond to the list of references

\i at the end of this report. As was discussed in section 3,2 of this report,

the aseismic design methods adopted by the codes and standards (references

12, 16, 21, 30 and 37) involve the calculation of an equivalent static force.

jj The force is to be applied to the center of gravity of the equipment and

the supports must be sized to resist the seismic force. Thus, in many cases

the fourth column of tables 9-13 will show a yes entry for code requirements

covering design of the support while showing a no entry for the main unit.

A case in point is the fourth column of tables 9-13 entries for pumps in

table 9,

Tables 14 through 18 also give the names and reference numbers of the

applicable guides and manuals of recommended practice. Most of the code and

standard requirements mentioned in tables 14 through 18 have been newly adopted

or revised since 1971, Therefore, some of the components for which medium

I or high frequency of occurrence of damage and moderate or major degree of

damage are given in tables 9 through 13 were not covered by earthquake

resistant design requirements at the times of the Great Alaska (1964) and

San Fernando (1971) earthquakes. For example, prior to 1971, there was not

57
TABLE 14 - IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE CODES & DESIGN GUIDES

FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM

Essential Service System Name of Code or Standard Design Guides [Reference No]

[Reference No .

iv

FIRE PROTECTION

Sprinkler System Nat'l. Fire Code-Vol . 13, Chap.

Nat'l. Fire Code-Vol 13, Appen.l3

[26]; State of Calif. -Title 17 [26]; ATC-3, Chap. 4

|"]2]; San Francisco Bldg Code [30]

[6]

risers Same As Above Same As Above

distribution mains Same As Above Same As Above

valves Same As Above Same As Above

branch pipes Same As Above Same As Above

sprinkler heads & controls - - support hangers, b racing & Same As Above Same As Above

controls

support hangers, b racing & Same As Above Same As Above

clamps

Standpipes Nat'l. Fire Code-Vol. 13, Chap.

[26] ; State of Calif. -Title 17 Nat'l. Fire Code-Vol

[26] ; ATC-3, Chap. 4 13,[6]

App. 13

mains Same As Above Same As Above

risers Same As Above Same As Above

clamps & hangers Same As Above Same As Above

Pumps

main unit Not Applicable Not Applicable

pipe connections

supports San Francisco Bldg. Code [30]

State of Calif. Admin. Code

Title 17 [12]; Tri-Services

Manual [36] ; UBC [37] L.A. Bldg

Code [21]

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

Pressure Tanks

tank

supports San Francisco Bldg. Code [30] ; State of Calif. Admin. Code

Title 17 ri2]; Tri-Services

Manual [36] ; UBC [37] ; L.A. Bldg

Code [21]

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [ 6]

Suction Tanks

tank

supports San Francisco Bldg. Code [30] ; State of Calif. Admin. Code

Title 17 [12] ; Tri-Services

Manual [36] ; UBC) [37] ; L.A. Bldg

Code [21] 1

lTC-3, Chapter 4 [ 6]

58
TABLE 15 - IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE CODES & DESIGN GUIDES

EMERGENCY POWER SYSTEM

Essential Service System Name of Code or Standard

[ Reference No .] Design Guides Reference No.]

EMERGENCY POWER

Motor-Generator Set motor & generator Not Applicable Not Appli cable

- radiator " " .,

- piping n M controls " „

fuel piping M ATX-3, Chapter 4 [6] starting batteries M mufflers

supports VA Hankbook H08-8 [16] ; Calif. Admin. Code-Title 17[12] ; Tri-Services Manual [36] ; San Francisco Bldg. Code [30]

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

Transformers ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6] main unit Same As Above

wiring connections Same As Above

supports VA Handbook H08-8 [16] ; Calif. Admin. Code-Title 17 [12] ; Tri-Services Manual [36] ; San Francisco Bldg. Code [30] Switchgear ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6] main unit conduits Same As Above

supports San Francisco Bldg. Code [30] ; Handbook H08-8 [16] ; Calif. Admin Code-Title 17 [12] ; Tri-Services

Manual [36]

Same As Above

Panelboards ATC-3, Chapter ^ [6] hsusing Same As Above

conduits Same As Above

supports San Francisco Bldg. Code [30] ; Handbook H08-8 [16] ; Calif. Admin Code-Title 17 [12] ; Tri-Services

Manual [36] Elec. Distribution Network San Francisco Bldg. Code [30] ; VA Handbook H08-8 [16] ; Calif. Admin. Code-Title 17 [12]

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

busducts Same As Above Same As Above

feeders Same As Above Same As Above

connectors Same As Above Same As Above

supports Same As Above Same As Above Lighting

lighting fixtures Tri-Services Manual [36] ; Calif. Admin. Code-Title 17 [12]; RGA

12-69 [20] ; VA Handbook H08-8 [16]

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

- recessed Tri-Services Manual [36] ; Calif.

Admin. Code-Title 17 [12]; VA Handbook H08-8 [16]

Same As Above

- surface-mounted Tri-Services Manual [36], VA Hand- book H08-8 [16]; Calif. Admin. Code-Title 17 [12]

Same As Above

- stem and chain suspended Tri-Services Manual [36], RGA 12-

69 [20]; VA Handbook H08-8 [16] Calif. Admin. Code-Title 17 [12]

Same As Above

59
TABLE 16 - IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE CODES & DESIGN GUIDES - SANITATION & WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Essential Service System Name of Code or Standard

[Reference No.

]

Design Guides [ Reference No.]

SANITATION & WATER SUPPLY

Pumps and Motors main unit Not Applicable Not Applicable

pipe connections M TI II II supports VA Bankbook H08-8 [16] ; Calif.

Admin. Code-Title 17[12] ; San Francisco Bldg. Code [30] ; TriServices Manual [35]

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

1 Hot & Cold Water Storage

Tanks ; tank body Not Applicable Not Applicable i pipe connections 11 II II II

supports VA Handbook H08-8 [16] ; UBC [37]

Calif. Admin Code-Title 17 [30]

San Francisco Bldg. Code [30]!

Tri-Services Manual [36]

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

Piping (air, steam, vacuum,

gas) VA Handbook H08-8 [16] ; Calif.

Tri-Services Manual [36]

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6] ; Tri-Services

Manual, Appen. H [36]

pipes Same As Above

fittings Same As Above

supports Same As Above

i Water Heaters

i

heater body Not Applicable Not Applicable

pipe connections II II ir !i supports VA Handbook H08-8 [16] ; Calif.

Admin. Code-Title 17 [12]

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

Plumbing Fixtures

i

60

i

<

i
TABLE 17 - IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE CODES & DESIGN GUIDES ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM

Essential Service System Name of Code or Standard

[ Reference No. ]

Design Guides [Reference No.]

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

Compressors (Air, Medical, Re- frigeration) main unit

pipe connections

supports

Fans (Air Supply, Exhaust) main unit supports

Chillers main unit

pipe connections

supports

Boilers main unit

pipe connections

supports

Duct Network

main distribution ducts branch distribution ducts

Heat Exchangers main unit

pipe connection

supports

Chimneys, Flues & Vents

HVC and Fuel Piping

pipes

fittings supports

Pumps main unit pipe connections

supports

Condensers main unit pipe connections

supports

Not Applicable

VA Handbook H08-8 [16]; Calif. Ad Code, Title 17 [12]; Tri-Serv. Manual [}(,] ; San Francisco Bldj Code [30]

VA Handbook H08-8 [16] ; Calf. Ad Code, Title 17 [12]; Tri-Serv. Manual [36]; San Francisco Bldg. Code [30]

VA Handbook H08-8 [16]; Calf. Ad Code, Title 17 [12]; Tri-Serv. Manual [36]; San Francisco Bldg. Code (26)

VA Handbook H08-8 [16]; Calif. Ac Code, Title 17 [12]; Tri-Serv. Manual [36]; San Francisco Bldg. Code [30]

Not Applicable

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

ATC-3 Chapter 4 [6]

Tri-Services Manual [36] Tri-Services Manual [36]

VA Handbook H08-8 [16]; Calif. Ad

Code, Title 17 [12]; Tri-Serv. Manual [36]; San Francisco Bldg. Code [30] use [37]; Calif. Ad Code Title

17 [12] L.A. Bldg. Code [20] San Francisco Bldg Code [30] Tri-Services Manual [36]; VA Hand book H08-8 [16]; Calif. Admin. Code-Title 17 [12] Same As Above

Same As Above

Same As Above

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

ATC-3 Chapter 4 [g] ATC-3 Chapter 4 [6]

ATC-3 Chapter 4 [6]

ATC-3 Chapter 4 [6]

•ATC-3 Chapter 4 [5]

Same As Above

Same As Above

Same As Above

Tri-Services Manual [36]; VA Hand book H08-8 [16]; Calif. Ad. Code, Title 17 [12]

Tri-Services Manual [36]; VA Hand book H08-8 [16]; Calif. Admin. Code-Title 17 [12]

61

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

ATC-3 Chapter 4 [6]
TABLE 18 - IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE CODES & DESIGN GUIDES

GENERAL SERVICES SYSTEM

Essential Service System Name of Code or Standard

[Reference No.]

Design Guides [Reference No,]

GENERAL SERVICES

People Movers elevators - traction type

guide rails

motor-generators

counterweights

control panels

cars support system

elevators - hydraulic type

escalators

machine and drive

controllers

trusses and tracks

Communication System

intercom/pa system

telephone equipment

switchboards

San Francisco Bldg. Code [30] ; State of Calif. Title 17 [12] ; VA Handbook H08-8 [16] Same As Above

Same As Above

Same As Above

Same As Above

Same As Above

State of Calif. Title 17 [12]; VA Handbook H08-8 [16] Same As Above

Same As Above

Same As Above

ATC-3, Chapter 4 [6]

Same As Above

Same As Above

Same As Above

62
in existence any code or standard governing the seismic design of elevator

components. It should also be noted that tables 14 through 18 do not reference the "IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of Class IE

Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations" [17], The omission is

because the design philosophies applicable to nuclear power generating stations may differ considerably from the philosophies regarding hospital service system equipment. It is necessary to evaluate both sets of design philosophies before attempting to transfer nuclear power design technology to

hospital service system equipment design.

The sixth and seventh columns of tables 9 through 13 indicate whether there

were any analytical procedures found in the literature —either in codes or

other reference sources —which are applicable to the listed components. As

shown in the tables, analytical procedures are cited for piping systems in

the Tri-Services Manual [36], in an article by Watwood et al. [41] and in

a report by Shipley et al. [33]. The Tri-Services method uses the equivalent

static force formulation and seems to be more generally applicable to building

service systems than the method discussed by Watwood et al. The latter method

involves a dynamic analysis of nuclear power piping, with particular emphasis

on nuclear class I and II piping. The prediction of seismic response of

light secondary systems —including light mechanical or electrical equipment

and piping—is the subject of a paper by Singh and Ang [34]. In this paper

a decoupled stationary random vibration model is developed for predicting

the systems' response to strong motion earthquakes. The method is primarily

intended for analyzing secondary systems in nuclear power plants, where the

requirements in RDT F9-2T [28] call for dynamic analyses. Nevertheless, the

analytical procedures described by Singh and Ang are based on random vibration

63
theory and seem applicable to some building service systems as well. Of

particular interest in the analysis of building service systems is a discussion by Singh and Ang of the effect on the predicted response of decoupling the structural and nonstructural systems (i.e., ignoring the dynamic

interaction between these two systems).

The eighth column of tables 9 through 13 is intended to show whether methods

of testing the service system components have been documented in the literature. Compliance testing is recognized as an alternative to analytical procedures for gaining approval from building regulatory organizations for the

use of systems and components. The only components for which test methods

are standardized and documented are light fixtures. As discussed in section

3.2, both Los Angeles RGA 12-69 [20] and the Tri-Services Manual [36] describe

a shaker-table test for evaluating light fixture assemblies.

In addition, DeCapua and Hetman [15] have derived a procedure for establishing

hydraulic shaker-table tests for communications equipment. The procedure is

primarily intended for establishing a region-dependent, simulated earthquake

test environment for equipment housed in multi-story telephone buildings.

Nevertheless, much of the methodology seems applicable to telephone equipment located in hospital facilities. DeCapua and Hetman first established

upper-bound response spectra by examining the in-building response of a

number of telephone building types. Then they digitally generated an artificial earthquake accelerogram to match the characteristics of the upperbound response spectra. To account for variations in earthquake hazards

across the country, a scaling technique was applied to the synthesized

acceleration time history. The simulated time history was then converted

to a displacement history for use on a hydraulic shaker-table.

64
The ninth and tenth columns of tables 9 through 13 use check marks to

indicate which components are assembled at the building site and which

ones are pre-assembled or packaged before being delivered to the site.

These classifications are important when identifying who has the responsibility for the aseismic design of the components and for establishing

the type of code or standard requirements governing the seismic performance of the components. For example, the earthquake-resistant design of

a packaged unit such as a compressor may be explicitly covered by manufacturer, industry, federal, etc., specifications and standards while the

equipment's supports may be designed according to building code regulations such as UBC [37].

4.3,2 Conclusions

The following observations are made in summarizing this review.

(1) Codes and standards are largely deficient in aseismic provisions

for pre-assembled equipment such as compressors, pumps and storage tanks.

The equivalent static force analysis adopted in the present edition of

the codes applies primarily to the design of equipment supports and attachment devices.

(2) There is a scarcity of documented analytical methods with which

to predict the seismic response of building service system components.

Analytical procedures for the evaluation of piping systems are the major

I exception to this deficiency. However, most of the present analytical

I development in the piping area is aimed at critical equipment in nuclear

I

jl power plants. A dynamic analysis method for light secondary systems in

' nuclear power plants was found to have potential application to some building service system components. /_
(3) The largest deficiency is in the area of physical test procedures.

Currently, there are dynamic test methods available for evaluating lighting

fixture assemblies. The adequacy of these methods may be questionable; the

damage summary tables of section 4.2 indicate that one category of lighting

fixture has been highly susceptible to major dam^age in recent documented

earthquakes, desipite the fact that the fixtures were approved through the

use of a dynamic test.

(4) Although Ayres et al. [10] and Merz [24] have offered some

recommendations for improved design and installation practice, there are

very few design guides and manuals of recommended practice currently available for the use of architects and design engineers. The NFPA Standard [26]

contains some widely accepted installation practices and bracing details for

sprinkler system design for earthquake resistance. The GSA report [2] presents some recommendations and some typical installation details which are

intended to mitigate seismic damage.

5. RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

A list of research needs was arrived at as the result of review of current

literature and discussion with designers and government agencies. The

following seven research areas are recommended for further study:

RECOMMENDATION 1 - Research should be undertaken to develop standardized

compliance tests for mechanical and electrical equipment,

It is of little use for the structural engineer to design the anchorage for

the mechanical and electrical equipment to survive the seismic lateral and

vertical forces if the eqipment's housing and/or internal components cannot

adequately resist these forces. The need for physical test methods is made

66
explicit by the tables in section A. 3. It is therefore, recommended that

research be initiated toward the development of new or the modification of

existing standard test methods for many of the critical electrical and

mechanical equipment elements identified in this report.

RECOMMENDATION 2 - More input to the process of determining capacity and

operating time requirements of emergency systems necessary,

As indicated in paragraph 3. 3. A, the hospital operations subcommittee, in

particular, is currently trying to define those activities and supporting

services considered essential to the continued functioning of the hospital

following the occurrence of an earthquake.

There are two basic parts that require further clarification. First, a

determination must be made as to what extent the essential systems in a

hospital must be post-earthquake operational. For example, what percentage

of the normal hospital electrical load must the emergency power system be

able to supply? Secondly, the length of time required for the essential

systems to be functional in an emergency mode following the occurrence of

an earthquake must be established.

Compounding this problem area is the uncertainty of assessing how badly the

community itself would be damaged by the earthquake. Such things as the

probable damage incurred by the community's utility systems, transportation

network, and other hospitals have to be considered in establishing a solution

to this problem. In addition, cost effectiveness of the solutions must be

j considered.

67
1Ltalf

RECOMMENDATION 3 - A study is needed to determine the applicability of current

aseismic design criteria to the retrofit of existing hospital!

As a result of the above-mentioned field visits, personal contacts and literature survey, it was found that there is an apparent excess number of hospital

beds currently available in areas highly susceptible to earthquake activity.

Therefore, there is not likely to be many new hospitals built in these areas

in the foreseeable future. Thus, retrofitting older hospitals for seismic

resistance is a major concern among hospital administrators, community planners,

architects and engineers.

Part of the problem is that it is not feasible, from a technical point of

view, to extend the useful life of hospitals constructed prior to the adoption

of new aseismic provisions beyond the period which was originally designated.

In addition, not every modification necessary for upgrading an old hospital

to the new aseismic design standards can be made because of the interconnection between the building elements,

RECOMMENDATION 4 - A study is needed to resolve the conflicting requirements

of isolating vibrating and noisy mechanical equipment from

the structure and of anchoring the equipment against excessive movement

,

Large pieces of mechanical equipment such as pumps, boilers, chillers and

cooling towers are often installed on the roofs and upper floors of hospital

buildings. To attenuate the vibration and noise transmission to patient

areas, various types of vibration isolation devices are placed between the

equipment and the supporting structural element. Generally, these isolation

devices are not bolted to the floor slab, wall, column, etc. As a result,

large horizontal and vertical displacements may occur when the structure is

subjected to seismic forces. As indicated in the tables of section 4,2,

68

I
the predominant cause of damage to mechanical equipment in recent earthquake

reports was the unrestrained movement of the support assemblies. The conflicting requirements of vibration isolation and equipment anchorage need to

be thoroughly investigated with the objective of developing a set of installation and remedial guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION 5 - Research aimed at the development of design guides for the

sizing and spacing of pipe bracing should be undertaken.

It is recognized that all pipes within a building may not need to be braced

against seismic forces to ensure the post-earthquake functioning of piping

systems. A dynamic analysis of the various piping systems would determine

which piping runs require bracing. Such analyses - as are conducted for

nuclear power plants - are generally not economically feasible in building

design. The research program would involve the mathematical modeling of typical

piping systems and the analysis of the effect of the various bracing strengths

and spacings on the response of the systems. Based on the research effort,

a design guide could be developed for locating and sizing bracing members.

RECOMMENDATION 6 - Research is needed to develop an improved acceptance test

for suspended lighting fixtures and their supports.

As indicated in table 5, stem-and chain-suspended lighting fixtures have

incurred major damage in recent earthquakes. Ironically, lighting fixtures

are one of the few pieces of equipment for which there is an existing test

method (see tables 9-13), However, some procedural deficiencies in the test

method have been noted in the literature [8,9, and 10]. A laboratory investigation could examine these deficiencies, while utilizing the test apparatus

and test setups described in the City of Los Angeles RGA 12-69 [20] and the

and the Tri-Services Manual, TM 5-809 -10 [36].

69
RECOMMENDATION 7 - An analytical evaluation of the force factors

(Cp values) used in design of supports for nonstructural

elements is needed.

As indicated in section 3.2, the basis for the Cp values listed in most

seismic codes has not been adequately explained. The lack of understanding

of the factors which influence the Cp values is a shortcoming in the state-ofthe-art in that the Cp value is central to the Equivalent Static Force method

of design/analysis. The recommended research would seek to evaluate the

basis and adequacy of the current values. The range of dynamic forces applicable to various nonstructural elements would be established. Cp values

could be analyzed to determine their sensitivity to various parameters.

Then equivalent static forces which account for the dynamic effects could

be derived.

70
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writers wish to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by the following:

Dr. Charles G. Culver, Office of Housing and Building Technology, coordinated

the activities of the study and provided advice in the preparation of the

report

Ms. Leslie Suddueth, Ms. Ann Heffernan and Ms. Cathy Warfield carefully performed the typing of the report.

Mr. John F. Meehan, Research Director, Structural Safety Section, Department

of General Services, State of California, provided background information

on California's legislative efforts and highlights of the statutes intended

to provide for continuous operation of hospitals during and after earthquakes.

Mr. Robert J. Barnecut, Associate Director, Stone, Marraccini and Patterson,

San Francisco, California, provided information on the current activities of

the Hospital Operations Subcommittee of the California Building Safety Board.

Dr. Paul Sonnenburg, U. S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory,

outlined the activities at CERL which are directed at preventing earthquake

damage to Army hospital facilities.

Mr. Ronald Arlenes, Mechanical Engineer and Mr. William Rutledge, VA Senior

Resident Engineer, Veterans Adminstration graciously arranged for the tour

of the VA Wadsworth Hospital in Los Angeles.

Mr. James Lefter, Director of Civil Engineering Service, Mr. Richard D. McConnell,

Chief of Structures Division, and Mr. Fun Kwok Chin, Director of Architecture

and Engineering, Veterans Administration, Washington, D. C, discussed various

71
VA Activities directed at preventing earthquake damage to VA Hospitals. They

also discussed the current construction of the VA Wadsworth Hospital in Los

Angeles, with particular emphasis on earthquake-resistant features of the

nonstructural systems.

Much valuable information was obtained as a result of visiting several

architectural and engineering firms in California. The writers wish to thank

the following individuals for sharing their insights on problem areas and

offering suggestions helpful in formulating research topics: Dr. George Young

and Mr. Douglas Bareis of Agbabian Associates; Mr. Mel Green of Mel Green

Associates; Mr. George Spencer of Archer-Spencer Associates; Mr. William Ropp

of Daniel Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall Associates; Mr. George Kauffman of

Kauffman Plumbing Company; Mr. Edward Saltzberg of Saltzberg and Associates

and Mr. Warner Harrison of Hilton-Harrison Inc.

72
7. LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Agbabian, Mihran S., "Behavior and Design of Nonstructural Systems,"

ITT Research Institute Conference on Designing to Servive Desaster,

6-8 November, 1973, Chicago, Illinois, El Segundo, California,

Agbabian Associates.

2. Anon., "Seismic Criteria Study of Nonstructural Building Components",

a report prepared for the General Services Administration, Washington

DC, July 1974.

3. Anon., "A Study to Establish Seismic Protection Provisions for

Furniture, Equipment and Supplies for V.A. Hospitals," a report prepared by

Stone, Marraccini and Patterson for the Veterans Administration, San

Francisco, 1975.

4. Anon., "Critical Use Facilities During and After Earthquakes", a paper

presented at the Seismic Safety Workship organized by the A. I. A. Research

Corporation, San Diego, California, February 1976.

5. Anon., "Development Study - VA Hospital Building System", research study

report prepared for the Veterans Administration, Project Number 99-R047 ,

Washington, DC, January 1972.

6. Applied Technology Council, "Development of Comprehensive Seismic Design

Provisions", ATC-3 , Chapter 4, Design of Elements of Buildings, January 1976,

7. Ayres, J. Marx, Sun, Tseng-Yao and Brown, Frederick, "A Report on

Nonstructural Damage to Buildings," Alaska Earthquake, March 27, 1964 ,

Burlingame : Consulting Engineers Association of California 1967.

73
8. Ayres. , Sun, T.Y. and Brown, F.R., "Nonstructural Damage to Buildings,"

The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Engineering , National Academy of

Sciences, Washington, DC, 1973, P. 346.

9. Ayres, J.M., "Damage to Building Equipment and Contents," The San

Fernando California Earthquake of February 9, 1971 , A preliminary report

published by the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA, Geological Survey Pro

fessional Paper 733, 1971, p. 220.

10. Ayres, J.M., and Sun, Tseng-Yao, "Criteria for Building Services and

Furnishings," Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation , BSS 46, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington DC, February 1973, p. 2 53.

11. Bergman, L.A. and Hannibal, A.J., "An Alternate Approach to Model

Damping as Applied to Seismic-Sensitive Equipment," The Shock and

Vibration Bulletin, Bulletin 46, Part 2, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory,

Washington, DC, August 1976, pp. 69-82.

12. California Adminstrative Code, Title 17, Public Health, Chapter 8,

"Safety of Contruction of Hospitals," State of California, 1973.

13. California, State of, Office of Architecture and Contruction, Office

staff notes interpreting City of Los Angeles, Rule of General Application,

RGA 3-67 for application in schools, 1970.

14. California, State of, California Adminstrative Code, Title 24, Special

Regulation, Architecture and Construction, Register 69, No. 42,

Table T21-107(b), 1969.

74
15. DeCapua, N.J., Hetraan, M.G., and Liu, S.C., "Earthquake Test Environment - Simulation and Procedure for Communications Equipment,"

The Shock and Vibration Bulletin, Bulletin 46, Part 2, U.S. Naval

Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, August 1976, pp. 59-76.

16. Handbook H08-8, "Earthquake Resistant Design Requirements for VA

Hospital Facilities," Office of Construction, Veterans Administration,

June 1973 (4/74).

17. IEEE Standard 344-1975, "IEEE Recommended Practices for Seismic

! Qualification of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations,"

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York.

18. Lew, H.S., Leyendecker, E.V. and Dikkers, R.D., "Engineering Aspects

'of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake," Building Science Series (BSS) 40 ,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, 1971.

19. Los Angeles, City of. Department of Building and Safety, Rule of

General Application, RGA 4-74, "Minimum Requirements for Ceiling Suspension

j Systems Supporting Luminous Ceilings and Acoustic Tile Ceilings with and

without Lighting Fixtures," 1967..

20. Los Angeles, City of. Department of Building and Safety, Rule of

General Application, RGA 12-69 , "Standard for Lighting Fixture Supports,"

1969.

21. Los Angeles, City of, Building Code, Division 23, "Loads and General

Design," 1973 Edition and 1973 and 1974 Amendments.

75
22. McCue, G.M., Vernez-Moudon, A., Kost, G. and Benjamin, J.R.,

"Building Enclosure and Finish Systems: Their Interaction With the

Primary Structure During Seismic Action", an article in Proceedings of the

U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 1975 , Ann Arbor,

Michigan, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California.

23. Meehan, John F., "California's Seismic Safety for Hospitals", an article

in Proceedings of the U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 1975

Ann Arbor, Michigan, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,

California.

24. Merz , K.L., "Nonstructural Hospital Systems in the Earthquake Environment"

an article in Proceedings of the U.S. National Conference on Earthquake

Engineering - 1975 , Ann Arbor, Michigan, Earthquake Engineering Research

Institute, Oakland, California.

2 5. National Academy of Sciences, "The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964",

Engineering , Washington, DC, 1973.

2 6. National Fire Code, Vol. 13, "Installation of Sprinkler Systems", National

Fire Protection Association.

27. Prause, R.H., Workman G.H. , Caba, D.W. and Gerth, J.W., "Seismic Evaluatior.

of an Electrical Equipment Enclosures", ASME Paper 73-DE T-72 , presented at

Design Engineering Technical Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1973,

28. RDT Standard, RDT F9-2T , "Seismic Requirements for Design of Nuclear

Power Plants and Test Facilities:, Division of Reactor Research and

Development, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, January 1974."

76
29. Rheuble, David M., "Certification of Large Equipment Durability to Seismic

Vibration Environments for Nuclear Power Plant Use," 1972 Proceedings of

the Institute of Environmental Sciences , 18th Annual Technical Meeting,

New York, May 1-4, 1972, pp. 169-302.

30. San Francisco, City and County of. Building Code, Article 23, 1975

Edition.

31. SEAOC Code, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary ,

Structural Engineers Association of California, 1974,

32. Senate Bill 519, State of California Legislature, Became Division 12.5

of the Health and Safety Code, Approved November 1972.

33. Shipley, L.E. and Piping Stress Engineering Staff, 'Seismic Analysis of

Piping Systems," BP-TOP-1 , Revision 3 , Bechtel Power Corporation San Francisco,

January 1976,

34. Singh, A.K. and Ang, A.H.S., "Stochastic Prediction of Maximum Seismic

Response to Light Secondary Systems,' an article in Nuclear Engineering and

Design, Vol, 19, 1974, North-Holland Publishing Company, pp. 218-230.

35. Skreiner, K.M., Fisher, E.G., Hou, S.N. and Shipway, G., "New Seismic

Requirements for Class 1 Electrical Equipment," IEEE Paper T-74 048-5 ,

presented at IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, NY, January 1974.

36. Tri-Services Manual, Army TM 5-809-10, Navy NAV FAC P-355, Air Force

AFM 88-3, "Seismic Design of Buildings," Department of the Army, the Navy,

and the Air Force, April 1973.

77
37. Uniform Building Code, 1973 Edition, International Conference of

Building Officials.

38. VA Construction Standard CD-54, "Post-Earthquake Emergency Utility

Services and Access Facilities," Veterans Administration, Nov. 2 6, 1973.

39. VA Construction Standard CD-55, "Earthquake Resistive Design of NonStructural Elements of Buildings," Veterans Adminstration, November 2 6,

1973.

40. Veterans Administration, "Earthquake Resistant Design Requirements for VA

Hospital Facilities," a report of the Earthquake and Wind Forces Committee,

VA Office of Construction, Washington, DC, March 1975.

41. Watwood, V.B., Chow, T.Y., Zudans, A., Miller, W.H., and Ortner, M.,

"Combined Analysis and Evaluation of Piping Systems Using the Computer,"

an Article in Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 2 7, 1974, North-Holland

Publishing Company, pp. 334-342.

42. Wright, Richard N. and Kramer, Saumel, "Building Performance in the

1972 Managua Earthquake," NBS Technical Note 807 , National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, DC, November 1973.

78
NBS-IUA (REV. 11-77)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBS TN-970

2. Gov't Accession

No.

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. Publication Date

Aseismic Design of Building Service Systems:

The State-of-the-Art

September 1978

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

C. W. C. Yancey and A. A. Camacho

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Same as item 9

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final (8/75 - I2/76)

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual sununary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

A search for information was conducted to define the state-of-the-art of aseismic

design of building service systems and to identify areas of needed research.

The study focused primarily on service systems essential to the continuous

operation of hospital facilities in post-earthquake periods. A review of the

literature pertaining to seismic performance of nonstructural systems is presented.

An evaluation of code and standard regulations applicable to the aseismic design

of service system components is also presented. Information obtained from direct

contact with several federal agencies, the State of California, and practicing

architects and engineers is summarized. The findings from a field visit of two

hospitals currently under construction in earthquake-prone areas are reported.

Deficiencies in current design/evaluation practice are identified and recommendations

for research are presented.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons)

Aseismic design; building service systems; codes; earthquake; hospitals;

standards.

18. AVAILABILITY [^ Unlimited

I ! For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I 3<i Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003 -

I I Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES,

83

22. Price

USCOMM-DC 66033-P7e

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research

of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and development in those disciplines of the physical and

engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These

include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and

computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology, and

the basic technology underlying standardization. Also in- cluded from time to time are survey articles on topics closely

related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As

a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent NBS publications in NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic $17.00; foreign $21.25. Single copy, $3.00 domestic;

$3.75 foreign. Note: The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical Sciences." DEMENSIONS/NBS

This monthly magazine is published to inform scientists, engineers, businessmen, industry, teachers, students, and

consumers of the latest advances in science and technology,

with primary emphasis on the work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution

abatement, health and safety, and consumer product per- formance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau pro- grams in measurement standards and techniques, properties

of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and automatic data processing.

Annual subscription: Domestic, $11.00; Foreign $13.75

NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical liter- ature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special

publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers,

chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers,

and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of

materials, compiled from the world's Uterature and critically evaluated. Developed under a world-wide program co- ordinated by NBS. Program under authority of National

Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396).

NOTE: At present the principal publication outlet for these data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements

available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St. N.W., Wash., D.C.

20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research

results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the

structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems. Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject.

Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often

serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose

of the standards is to establish nationally recognized require- ments for products, and to provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supple- ment to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations.

Consumer Information Scries—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and

illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402. Order following NBS publications—NBSIR's and FIPS from

the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, Va. 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register.

Register serves as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS

pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended. Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717

(38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of

interim or final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors (both government and non-government).

In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor;

public distribution is by the National Technical Information

Services (Springfield, Va. 22161) in paper copy or microfiche form.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey bibli- ographies are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service. A litera- ture survey issued biweekly. Aimual subscription: Domestic, $25.00; Foreign, $30.00.

Liquified Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly.

Annual subscription: $20.00.

Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature survey

issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $30.00. Send subscription orders and remittances for the preceding bibliographic

services to National Bureau of Standards, Cryogenic Data

Center (275.02) Boulder, Colorado 80302.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use. S300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-215 1

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

BOOK